blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 b-f seriously though, isn't it awful being stuck in a vacuum over on this side of the world? i don't know of anything that goes on in the big world of the USA. Absolutely...I sometimes worry that if it weren't for American Idol, I'd never get any insight at all into what goes on over there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I think you tend to overplay the "anti-commercial" stance of the early punks....Maybe their stance wasn't dictated so much by "anti-commercialism" as by the lack of a sympathetic domestic market? I absolutely agree with that. If you're anti-commerce, don't sign a freaking record deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 b-f seriously though, isn't it awful being stuck in a vacuum over on this side of the world? i don't know of anything that goes on in the big world of the USA. sometimes i find it hard being so cut off from the rest of the world The thing is, we're so seldom exposed to any American culture. I guess maybe it's because their way of life is so much less "corporate" and commercialised than ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 American culture=corporate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 My statement=ironic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 No, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Well, occasionally your more dull-witted compatriots have been known to miss that kind of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I see. You and I don't ever seem to post anything serious unless someone insults a band of ours, so we are probably most transparent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I kinda hoped you would be a bit harsher on me than that.... (but not ban me, obviously...) After all, that was potentially quite rude.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Ok, how about this: You mean my "dull-witted compatriots" who once banded together and essentially pushed your once-mighty, infinitely more equipped country back across the ocean, to its ultimate resting spot of our collective back pocket? Better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious_Peaches Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Would you two get a room already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 As if there's enough space in any one room for both of our egos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Well, I meant I was expecting to be more harshly chastised for the potential offence of my blanket statement about the good citizens of the USA who comprise the great majority of SongFactors, rather than be "crushed underfoot like an insignificant insect". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Sorry, I'm all or nothing. You've possibly insulted all Americans, and I've possibly insulted all Brits. So I think having a tie makes it all square, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiggsUK Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Every body knows the settlers didn't actually win a war. The British got bored on the one hand, and had more important issues to resolve with those dastardly Frenchies elsewhere in the world on the other... You Americans and your Americocentric view of world history.... Tee hee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Careful Diggs - we've got Paul Edward Wagemann on our side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 I don't know what came over me.....I guess I just thought that if people are going to wade in here in their Size 9s, insulting all and sundry... well I'm not going to be upstaged by some "johnny-come-lately".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiggsUK Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 You could never be upstaged, oh prosemeister... World history depends upon the author naturally... I'd rather not belive the Hollywood version of events, thats all... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 That's more than understandable - there's only room for one insult-spewing punk fan here. Viva la Blind-Fitter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 That's more than understandable - there's only room for one insult-spewing punk fan here. Well no...there's room for plenty more: I just don't intend to be upstaged by any, that's all.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Point taken. I don't think you have anything to worry about there, slugger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 You know what? Prior to posting my reponse to PaulEdwardWagemann (7 hours ago now), I was concerned that our discussion might degenerate into some adolescent dispute over "who invented punk?". I needn't have worried.... It's degenerated much further than that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daslied Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 Discussing the invention of punk would require some actual proof, which doesn't seem to be Paul's forte. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulEdwardWagemann Posted May 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 (edited) Earlier in this thread you castigated The Sex Pistols for being choreographed like a boy-band, poseurs, and now you're claiming that "by commercializing Punk, the Sex Pistols basically undercut everything Punk stood for". So where do you stand on The Ramones? You don't think that having a band uniform, a gimmick (pretending to be brothers), a logo, etc. represent distinct elements of boy-band choreography, posing, striving to turn their schtick into something "commercial", or , in other words...uh, "commercialism". The Ramones were not "anti-commercial" in any respect. They and most of the other artists you mentioned would have given their right arms for something like the commercial profile achieved by the Pistols and The Clash. As it is, it required a youth explosion in the UK to generate interest in those bands, which in turn enhanced their profile "back home". Nobody denied the crucial influence of those US bands on the development of The Pistols/UK punk, but it's as well to recall that even in their own country they were perceived as "minority interests" and their popularity confined to tiny ghettoes. I suppose it depends whether you consider this to have been "by choice" or not,...whether you want to be elitist about it....Most of those who survived, when offered the opportunity to enjoy an enhanced public profile, took it gladly...and didn't ask The Sex Pistols permission one way or another... I think you tend to overplay the "anti-commercial" stance of the early punks....Maybe their stance wasn't dictated so much by "anti-commercialism" as by the lack of a sympathetic domestic market? The difference between the Ramones and the Sex Pistols (well one of the differences anyway) is that the Ramones were original--authentic. The Sex Pistols were manufactured to copy what the Ramones, NY Dolls, Richard Hell, etc were already doing...The Sex pistols were part of punk as a 'pop movement'. The Ramones started out just making noise and leaving people flaberghasted. The leather jackets, the bowl-cuts, etc were all part of the fun, but also a way of expressing unity in any who opposed them (gang-mentality if you will), it wasn't about trying to be a part of a pop movement... Edited May 4, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blind-fitter Posted May 4, 2006 Report Share Posted May 4, 2006 (edited) Due to family commitments, I am unable to respond to your points just now. In any case, I may reflect upon whether to bother responding or not. If I fail to do so, please do not interpret this as indicative of your having "won the argument", so much as my recognition of your apparent intransigence. Edited May 4, 2006 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now