Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
windy1

same band- different incarnations??

Recommended Posts

Sorry, what I meant was "I don't mind anybody disagreeing with me, as long they propose a sensible argument...etc, etc.". That was just me being an insufferable smart-arse, as is my occasional wont.

You definitely suggested at some point in the past couple of days, that there are certain parts of this planet where Echo & The Bunnymen enjoy greater recognition with certain sections of the music-loving population (of a specific demographic) than do The Doors. My current signature is an admittedly-fairly-unamusing expression of my contrary view that, in all probability, the only place where this applies is within the confines of "The Echo & The Bunnymen Fan Club". This, once again is symptomatic of my regrettable predilection for insufferable smart-arsery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You definitely suggested at some point in the past couple of days, that there are certain parts of this planet where Echo & The Bunnymen enjoy greater recognition with certain sections of the music-loving population (of a specific demographic) than do The Doors. My current signature is an admittedly-fairly-unamusing expression of my contrary view that, in all probability, the only place where this applies is within the confines of "The Echo & The Bunnymen Fan Club". This, once again is symptomatic of my regrettable predilection for insufferable smart-arsery.

Yes, and that would've been the 80s in markets where there is no radio format that can be equated to the UK, Western Europe, and North America, which you are trying really really really hard to fit the round peg into the square one, so to speak. Suffice to say, some were lucky to get MTV around 1985, years after it premiered in both sides of the pond. If you can find a "Classic Rock" (Rock in English language, mind you) station anywhere in Central and South America from the 80s, you win the Internet. At this point, I can tell you we heard more Iron Maiden and Van Halen than The Doors in Latin America during the 80s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Notwithstanding your steadfast adherence to the evidence provided by mid 80s Latin American radio airplay statistics....)

You wouldn't share my view then, that whilst Morrison/The Doors are one of probably only 20 or so acts in the history of rock to have achieved enduring iconic status on a virtually global scale, The Bunnymen are just (admittedly a half-decent) one of many thousands of "also-rans"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Notwithstanding your steadfast adherence to the evidence provided by mid 80s Latin American radio airplay statistics....)

You wouldn't share my view then, that whilst Morrison/The Doors are one of probably only 20 or so acts in the history of rock to have achieved enduring iconic status on a virtually global scale, The Bunnymen are just (admittedly a half-decent) one of many thousands of "also-rans"?

I never stated The Doors were less popular, less talented, or had less impact on a global scale, so, again, you are attempting to make a warped perspective and claim it to be mine. I think all I did was say that both bands' songs are recognised by music fanatics and radio listeners and that, at one time, EATB did get more airplay than The Doors not only in their respective target markets, but in other places, which is obvious since they had hit singles in that time. Actually, this would make sense in any music scene for any band that had/has a hit song (for example: I turn on the television and there's more chances of seeing Franz Ferdinand than The Doors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would likely fall into your definition of a music fan. I own well over 600 cd's, used to own and run a music store online, and managed several "brick and mortar" stores. I grew up in the 80's. I would be exactly the guy you were going for in your demographic of those who would "know Echo at least as well as the Doors", yes?

I don't know that I could identify an Echo song to save my life. If I heard one I might think "oh, man, I remember this crap from the 80's" but I wouldn't know it was Echo.

If I hear a Doors song on the radio, any Doors song, one I know or not, I immediately know it's the Doors. Why? Because first of all, I know most of their songs, and the ones I don't know, well, the Doors had a sound which was pretty identifiable. They carved their own niche in rock and roll history and lived there.

There's a huge difference there if you ask me. A band that was making so-called hit songs in the generation that I grew up listening to the radio, compared to the one who were already broken up by the time I was a wee lad, and I know the one from before my time.

I hate the feeling that we're all jumping on you like this, but honestly, you say these blanket statements about a certain type of people, and you say it to THOSE people, and when they say that your assumption about them is wrong, you argue and say that it's right.

That'd be like me telling you that you prefer the color purple, and you saying "no, my favorite color is red, I don't even own anything purple" and me saying "yes, but if you were a real person you'd know that red is just a derivative of purple and you're just buying a different shade. You prefer purple, face it."

(oh, and for the record, I own a few duran duran, depeche mode, and other new wave albums, so you can't just say that I'm "not a new wave fan")

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would likely fall into your definition of a music fan. I own well over 600 cd's, used to own and run a music store online, and managed several "brick and mortar" stores. I grew up in the 80's. I would be exactly the guy you were going for in your demographic of those who would "know Echo at least as well as the Doors", yes?

I don't know that I could identify an Echo song to save my life. If I heard one I might think "oh, man, I remember this crap from the 80's" but I wouldn't know it was Echo.

If I hear a Doors song on the radio, any Doors song, one I know or not, I immediately know it's the Doors. Why? Because first of all, I know most of their songs, and the ones I don't know, well, the Doors had a sound which was pretty identifiable. They carved their own niche in rock and roll history and lived there.

There's a huge difference there if you ask me. A band that was making so-called hit songs in the generation that I grew up listening to the radio, compared to the one who were already broken up by the time I was a wee lad, and I know the one from before my time.

I hate the feeling that we're all jumping on you like this, but honestly, you say these blanket statements about a certain type of people, and you say it to THOSE people, and when they say that your assumption about them is wrong, you argue and say that it's right.

That'd be like me telling you that you prefer the color purple, and you saying "no, my favorite color is red, I don't even own anything purple" and me saying "yes, but if you were a real person you'd know that red is just a derivative of purple and you're just buying a different shade. You prefer purple, face it."

(oh, and for the record, I own a few duran duran, depeche mode, and other new wave albums, so you can't just say that I'm "not a new wave fan")

Where ever did you get the notion I am "arguing" about these points? I don't argue, I tell. Arguing reeks of persuasion and dissuasion. Not once, have I told anyone here what they should and should not like. Your analogy falls flat, guy. You can call yourself anything you want. I never presumed anything about you, as opposed to a few posters who have done so with me.

Let me frame this subject the way you're approaching this: Let's compare bands that were huge innovators and carved a niche in Rock 'N Roll history. That pretty much leaves us with 20 something bands in the grand scheme of this narrow definition. So, then, who ARE The Doors comparable to? Nobody. The Beatles? Nobody. The Beach Boys? Nobody. Elvis? Nobody. Pink Floyd? Nobody. David Bowie? Nobody. We're basically left with the "top 25 bands" from about.com and nobody who subsequently came afterwards to compare them with, since, after all, these bands had the misfortune to only have "so-called hit songs." Heck, at this rate, we might as well throw out New Wave altogether since it is only rife with so-called hit songs and did not carve a niche in Rock 'N Roll history (how many New Wave artists made it to the Hall Of Fame?).

***Edit: Here's a minor reference to Post Punk/New Wave from AMG:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2636

After the punk revolution of 1977, a number of bands inspired by the d.i.y. spirit and raw sound of punk were formed. However, instead of replicating the sound of the Sex Pistols, many of these bands forged into more experimental territory, taking cues from a range of artists and styles, such as Roxy Music, David Bowie (especially Low, Heroes and Lodger), disco, dub and Krautrock. The result was Post-Punk, a more adventurous and arty form of punk, no less angry or political but often more musically complex and diverse. Many of these groups — like Joy Division or the Cure — created dark, synthesizer-oriented soundscapes while others— like Orange Juice or XTC — had a lighter guitar-based musical approach but their lyrics and music were off-kilter and often subverted traditional pop/rock song structures. Post-punk eventually developed into alternative pop/rock in the '80s.

Here are their top artists:

http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=77:2636~T1

Echo And The Bunnymen are near the top...

Funny that you say I make "blanket" statements. Isn't a "generation" a blanket statement as well? Blanket statements are a way to discuss things in this topic. Makes sense to me, since that's how the other posters who made band comparisons discussed their ideas.

Edited by Guest
Addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that the fact that new wave artists have not made it to the hall of fame means that the have not been important in the history of music. Some of these bands have been highly influential in defining the 80s.

I think we both agree that it is a common misconception that only these huge bands from the 60s are important in the history of music. And as you've pointed out before, if it wasn't for bands like depeche mode, echo and the bunnymen etc, there wouldn't be bands like the killers and the bravery, so clearly they have been influential

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"I don't argue, I tell."

Wow. Are you really that confident in what you "know"?

I don't argue, I just say. If I am in doubt, I'll ask around or read more about it. I don't doubt Echo And The Bunnymen sound like The Doors, nor do I doubt they are prominent figures of the 80s New Wave scene.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't argue, I just say. If I am in doubt, I'll ask around or read more about it. I don't doubt Echo And The Bunnymen sound like The Doors, nor do I doubt they are prominent figures of the 80s New Wave scene.

You complain about people making presumptions about you, yet you're constantly rewording things when questioned/commented upon. How is anyone supposed to "get" you? You just seem to say something, wait for the response so that you can clarify what you said, and then you just do the same thing again about something else.

You say that you're open to discussion, but when someone tries to engage you, you condescend and backtrack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I reword? "Telling" = "saying." The full quote is in context with "I don't 'argue' because it smacks of persuading and dissuading." Thus, I don't argue, I tell. The only time I truly needed to make a clarification was when I said "music fans" know of both bands. Otherwise, I have not condescended or backtracked. If you misread something out of context, then, well... there is nothing I can do, except make more clarifications.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I reword? "Telling" = "saying." The full quote is in context with "I don't 'argue' because it smacks of persuading and dissuading." Thus, I don't argue, I tell. The only time I truly needed to make a clarification was when I said "music fans" know of both bands. Otherwise, I have not condescended or backtracked. If you misread something out of context, then, well... there is nothing I can do, except make more clarifications.

You reworded several times in this thread. You've condescended even more. You've also claimed misinterpretation a number of times with different people, so perhaps that should tell you something.

Anyhoo...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tried to make light of it, but I find this just irritating beyond all belief. Someone says something, others choose to try and one-up the previous post. "Look how verbose and 'intelligent' I can be." There are wars going on, people are dying. Children are being killed. Some other people slept in the cold and rain in a friggin' cardboard box last night. People go to bed hungry. Yet the arguement as to whom was better, the Doors or Echo and the fricking Bunnymen rages on. Music is subjective. Those who like Echo like Echo. Those who like the Doors, like the Doors. You may as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Be done with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We weren't arguing about "Who was better: The Doors or The Bunnymen?" The subject of "who was better" scarcely arose. We were discussing, albeit rather protractedly, and occasionally rather animatedly, the merits of different approaches to the thread theme: comparison based purely on sonic similarity versus comparison based on other less literal-minded criteria. The conversation took a few twists and turns, as it can when people disagree with (or simply misunderstand) one another; in this case we got a bit stuck on the issue of relative fame / recognition. But on the whole, it has been an engaging, illuminating and entertaining diversion. Nobody moved, nobody got hurt. (As far as I know)

Some may well have found elements of the debate tedious and long-winded; I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd say there's generally enough going on in Songfacts that we can choose to avoid reading threads that don't interest us. We're all reasonable adults, right?

In the meantime: how about The Pet Shop Boys as "the 90s Sparks"? Both male duos making intelligent, articulate, classy, and archly-humourous subversive pop; elements of grandiose pomposity, but all delivered with a knowing wink. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We weren't arguing about "Who was better: The Doors or The Bunnymen?" The subject of "who was better" scarcely arose. We were discussing, albeit rather protractedly, and occasionally rather animatedly, the merits of different approaches to the thread theme: comparison based purely on sonic similarity versus comparison based on other less literal-minded criteria. The conversation took a few twists and turns, as it can when people disagree with (or simply misunderstand) one another; in this case we got a bit stuck on the issue of relative fame / recognition. But on the whole, it has been an engaging, illuminating and entertaining diversion. Nobody moved, nobody got hurt. (As far as I know)

Some may well have found elements of the debate tedious and long-winded; I can't speak for anyone else, but I'd say there's generally enough going on in Songfacts that we can choose to avoid reading threads that don't interest us. We're all reasonable adults, right?

Um, nope. You were arguing.

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...