Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
windy1

same band- different incarnations??

Recommended Posts

Try doing a bit of a poll asking international New Wave fans here:

http://www.nwoutpost.com/forum/default.asp

I can tell you from having lived in Latin America during the 80s that Echo got more airplay during those years than The Doors. They might not have recognised Ian since this was still an era of radio and MTV had not reached our side until the mid-80s, but those songs definitely got played. But, sure, the Pacific Islander or Persian (where European music is banned) markets aren't going to ever reach the heights of the US, UK, and Western European markets - it would be preposterous to want to get something of equal value, as you are asking, because they are completely different markets (as in, there is NONE and they're left at the mercy of what stations want to play). You really think Echo are that exclusive to only be heard in the UK and North America? I'd say it's harder to prove that. Try to prove Echo did not get played in Argentina, or Colombia, or Guatemala, or Mexico, or Japan, or the Philippines, or insert name of far-away remote place during the 80s. In other words, get real, man.

Geez, and I thought I was anal.... ;)

Here's an article on an album of theirs proclaiming their sound-alike nature to The Doors:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&token=&sql=10:2s320roac48v

I've never denied that The Bunnymen were strongly-influenced by The Doors: in fact I seem to recall openly acknowledging this. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken.

I'll even go ahead and apply my own random comparison of The Sex Pistols with The Backstreet Boys: Both had their "image" carefully crafted and were equally untalented.

First your Prince>>>Beck comparison, now this.

Well done, sunshine-boy, you seem to be getting the hang of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never denied that The Bunnymen were strongly-influenced by The Doors: in fact I seem to recall openly acknowledging this. Somebody correct me if I'm mistaken.

I didn't say you ignored the fact they are influenced. I stated that's how I direct the discussion.

First your Prince>>>Beck comparison, now this.

Well done, sunshine-boy, you seem to be getting the hang of it.

Actually, Prince and Beck comparison came from the vocal tone of some of his songs with the high-pitched falsetto. This, in spite of the fact Beck doesn't play every instrument known to Rock the way Prince does. There is something peculiar about Beck's choice of music which is a bit multi-faceted, but I could compare that with any band that uses weird electronic sound and loops (like Cabaret Voltaire).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed your Beck / Prince analogy so much, it set me wondering whether Prince might have been the 90s Bowie. Anyway....

Cabaret Voltaire! Now you're talking! So who do you consider the modern-day Cabs? Somebody like The Aphex Twin maybe? But without the leather shorts...

I've cut a rug to "Nag!Nag!Nag!" a few times, I can tell you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't think of anyone current to compare them to Cabaret Voltaire, esp. since there are different stages to their music career. Sometime around 1983 with the release of The Crackdown is when their sound began to change to something more... "cohesive." That thought's gonna burn a synapse in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prince was the David Bowie of the 90s. This time around, Prince got the better of the record company by being biz savvy unlike Bowie who had to learn to become a business man in the music biz.

Solex would probably be a decent follow-up to some of Beck's early music. She experimented with bits and pieces of sound to make song collages (which is also something music pioneers, Cabaret Voltaire and Robert Fripp, did early on in their music life). It's too bad that she's so indie very few college radio jocks know who she is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you can poll New Wave Fans and ask them about how important Echo and the Bunnymen were... Okay, but you can poll just about -anybody- and ask them about the Doors. You don't have to poll Classic Rock fans, or people who like Robby Kreiger's haircut. Everybody knows the Doors. New Wave fans know Echo.

That's the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are the Chemical Brothers the new Hawkwind?

Do people really pay their Council Tax to allow BF to spend so much worktime at his pc?

So many questions, so little time.

I've been listening to The Orb recently and they're a kind of "Hawkwind for the post-techno generation"

As for your second point: it was my lunch-break, OK? }:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you compare Doors and Echo&Bunnymen? I don´t think they make a similar kind of music and McCullough´s behaviour has nothing to do with Jim Morrisson´s... the Bunnymen are very cool while The Doors were more agressive...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You say you can poll New Wave Fans and ask them about how important Echo and the Bunnymen were... Okay, but you can poll just about -anybody- and ask them about the Doors. You don't have to poll Classic Rock fans, or people who like Robby Kreiger's haircut. Everybody knows the Doors. New Wave fans know Echo.

That's the difference.

You missed my point. I was referencing the fact Echo were played in other countries during the 80s, not just the UK and North America.

Echo And The Bunnymen are rather important to this day, considering their lead singer is still alive and kicking, AND is still productive, AND recently toured the US. You can ask just about - anyone - about the hit singles I mentioned some posts back. Music fans know Echo as much as they know about The Doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you compare Doors and Echo&Bunnymen? I don´t think they make a similar kind of music and McCullough´s behaviour has nothing to do with Jim Morrisson´s... the Bunnymen are very cool while The Doors were more agressive...

I compare them because their music sounds similar at times. In an era famous for the overuse of synths, they still employed the electric guitar as their main instrument, but they also included the oddball sitar and psychedelic sound of the 60s. Naturally, they were oft compared with The Doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Echo And The Bunnymen are rather important to this day, considering their lead singer is still alive and kicking, AND is still productive, AND recently toured the US. You can ask just about - anyone - about the hit singles I mentioned some posts back. Music fans know Echo as much as they know about The Doors.

I don't get a few things about this paragraph:

1. Just because someone is still active today doesn't mean they're still important. And just because someone is dormant doesn't mean they're not important. Def Leppard still tours and puts out albums, but are they really important now? (Not arguing that they ever were. :)) John Lennon has been dead for 25 years, so is he no longer important?

2. I don't like The Doors and I don't really care either way about E&TB, so I'm not taking a side here. But there is no way you can believe your own sweeping statement that music fans (pretty much everyone alive?) know Echo as well as The Doors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I gravitate more towards the notion that a band remains important if they're productive in terms of cutting new music and touring. How many New Wave bands are still around today? I can name a bunch (i.e. Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, ABC, Terri Nunn), but I can name ten times that number who are now defunct, gone, finito - died in the 80s with the rest of the stereotypes of "weird haircuts and shiny suits." You bet I think Def Leppard are relevant now, just as any other Rock band from that era that tours and makes new albums. The more a band or musician is out there, the less they have to rely on their 15 minutes of fame to propel them in the collective pop cultural psyche. john lennon has been dead for 25 years, but he was around making music for 20 years prior. That's pretty hard forget, as opposed to 4 or 5 years together and making 6 to 7 famous singles.

2. There will be folks who will know one and not the other and vice versa. Heck, people know the songs "Bizarre Love Triangle," "True Faith," and "Blue Monday" and can't name you the song and/or the band who made them. It still doesn't take away from the fact your casual listeners have heard "Light My Fire" often and have heard "The Killing Moon" as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I get what you're saying about productivity/visibility, but I still don't agree. I was also aghast when Michael Jordan played for the Wizards. I think the only reason bands like Def Leppard are still out there is because of their prior 15 minutes of fame. It's nostalgic for their fans. There may be a few diehard fans there for the new singles, but most of them just want to hear "Foolin'".

2. I also get what you're saying in your final sentence here, but originally you intimated that the general public's knowledge of The Doors and Echo & TB were equal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't object to anybody being "wrong", as long as they are able to substantiate their wrong position with decent points of argument. It is with regard to the latter that I feel you are letting yourself down.

lol @ substantiating a 'wrong' position. What a ludicrous suggestion. Why would I discuss something, which I know to be right, in terms of it being wrong? Guy, you need to take your own statement and "substantiate" it for yourself.

And lol @ your signature. Apparently, you misread my posts as, "The Doors are less famous than Echo And The Bunnymen." Substantiate that with my own words. I, too, have no problem with others being wrong, or even myself. Maybe I was high when I wrote "The Doors are less famous than Echo And The Bunnymen"; find that direct quote using my words in context. Otherwise, you are attempting to substantiate a wrong position - and that comes as no surprise since the suggestion sprang from you.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I get what you're saying about productivity/visibility, but I still don't agree. I was also aghast when Michael Jordan played for the Wizards. I think the only reason bands like Def Leppard are still out there is because of their prior 15 minutes of fame. It's nostalgic for their fans. There may be a few diehard fans there for the new singles, but most of them just want to hear "Foolin'".

2. I also get what you're saying in your final sentence here, but originally you intimated that the general public's knowledge of The Doors and Echo & TB were equal.

2. I can see where the confusion arises. I'm not very good at conveying something directly, so you'll have to pardon me. I think I said, "Hit single for single Echo can match The Doors in recognition." I'm venturing to guess that your casual radio listener has heard 5 or 6 songs by The Doors and knows them well enough to say they're by The Doors/Jim Morrisson. I'm also venturing to guess that a casual listener, the kind who'd tune into KROQ (Modern Rock), KLOS (Classic Rock), etc., will know the hit singles that Echo made in the 80s. Years back, Donnie Darko premiered and in its song collection they featured "The Killing Moon." You think young people nowadays, who happen to list Donnie Darko as one of their all-time favourite films, would ignore that song? Even Tears For Fears got famous off the cover of one of their tunes, if only briefly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. I gravitate more towards the notion that a band remains important if they're productive in terms of cutting new music and touring. How many New Wave bands are still around today? I can name a bunch (i.e. Depeche Mode, Duran Duran, ABC, Terri Nunn), but... ...

Never heard of Terri Nunn. Duran Duran and ABC both split up for considerable lengths of time and reformed only in order to cash in on the inexplicable wave of nostalgia for crap early 80s pop, on the fifteen minutes of fame they once had. The only one of these examples to have "remained productive" in any meaningful way is Depeche Mode, and frankly, I, for one, rather wish they hadn't. (Though I would begrudgingly admit that they have improved over the years, albeit from pitifully mediocre beginnings.)

2. There will be folks who will know one and not the other and vice versa. Heck, people know the songs "Bizarre Love Triangle," "True Faith," and "Blue Monday" and can't name you the song and/or the band who made them. It still doesn't take away from the fact your casual listeners have heard "Light My Fire" often and have heard "The Killing Moon" as well.

It's such a shame I can't replicate a Venn Diagram here. I would wager that everyone in the world who has heard E&TB has also heard The Doors, whereas, of all those who are familiar with The Doors, a significant proportion wouldn't recognise Echo And The Bunnymen from Throbbing Gristle.

In any case, you miss my point (wilfully, I suspect). It is not merely a question of relative fame / recognition that serves to differentiate the two. I was suggesting that a band/artist can be alot more than the sum of it's sonic parts. The Doors/Jim Morrison have sufficient of myth and legend attached to them for them to have entered rock's iconography. Ian McCulloch/The Bunnymen, on the other hand, apart from achieving moderate success with their reasonably pleasing post-punk neo-psychedelia, have never really done anything interesting in their lives. This may explain why "the person on the street", (almost any street you could choose, in the entire world), may know who The Doors are, but would look askance if confronted by a Bunnymen tune. Your admirable refusal to concede any ground on this, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary convinces me you are, in fact, PaulEdwardWagemann in disguise. Unmask yourself!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what you said.

Gotcha. That's really poor/bad wording on my account. A music "fanatic," to me, collects music. I'd venture to say people who collect music, know their song facts, frequent music boards, etc. know about both bands. Whereas, the casual listener will know either one. Older listener might only know The Doors. Younger listerners might know both. Those in between might know both. All of them without the benefit of not owning any of their albums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never heard of Terri Nunn.

Lead singer of Berlin. She still tours as "Berlin," but it's only Terri Nunn.

Duran Duran and ABC both split up for considerable lengths of time and reformed only in order to cash in on the inexplicable wave of nostalgia for crap early 80s pop, on the fifteen minutes of fame they once had.

Duran Duran never split up. Band members did leave and at one time there were only two original members in the line-up (with Warren Cucurullo, of Berlin, filling in as a third). Define "considerable length of time." D2 has been active, even if their albums have been shoddy at best from time to time. They never left the scene and they recently toured promoting their new album the same way DeMode has.

Duran Duran

Duran Duran discography

ABC never broke up either and they recently toured promoting their new album.

ABC discography

It's such a shame I can't replicate a Venn Diagram here. I would wager that everyone in the world who has heard E&TB has also heard The Doors, whereas, of all those who are familiar with The Doors, a significant proportion wouldn't recognise Echo And The Bunnymen from Throbbing Gristle.

Making the same guesses I have. I'd venture to guess there are some who won't know either band.

In any case, you miss my point (wilfully, I suspect). It is not merely a question of relative fame / recognition that serves to differentiate the two. I was suggesting that a band/artist can be alot more than the sum of it's sonic parts. The Doors/Jim Morrison have sufficient of myth and legend attached to them for them to have entered rock's iconography. Ian McCulloch/The Bunnymen, on the other hand, apart from achieving moderate success with their reasonably pleasing post-punk neo-psychedelia, have never really done anything interesting in their lives. This may explain why "the person on the street", (almost any street you could choose, in the entire world), may know who The Doors are, but would look askance if confronted by a Bunnymen tune. Your admirable refusal to concede any ground on this, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary convinces me you are, in fact, PaulEdwardWagemann in disguise. Unmask yourself!

Man, I have no idea what you're talking about, but it's hilarious - that end part really adds a zing! But, yeah, I understood your previous point about being innovative and THEN making the claim that they are that generation's so and so. I told you already (twice I think!): It's not how I approached this game. All I look for is similarity in sound and technique, which already means they're not breaking any new ground. Heck, Echo could be a band playing at the local pub without a chance for a record deal for all I care. As long as they share a similar sound, I'll make the comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your admirable refusal to concede any ground on this, despite the weight of evidence to the contrary convinces me you are, in fact, PaulEdwardWagemann in disguise. Unmask yourself!

I was thinking the same thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...