Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Truely sad and disappointing.
Makes me wonder,if Sid had lived,would he be doing comercials for McDonalds now?

" Oi! This is Sid Vicious..Back when I was bassist for the Sex Pistols I had an appetite for drugs and mayhem...but now (kicks Ronald and punches Mayor McCheese)..I got an appetite for the delicious taste of a juicy Big Mac..now F**K off and get me one!!"

...just sad..

LOL

'Oi you 'orrible c#nts! Do you like food? Well, I don't 'cos I'm a smack-head...but if I DID, I would eat at Pizza Hut!'

LOL

" Hey F****R,this is Darby Crash for Breck Hair products,when I want my mohawk as stiff and sharp as my hypodermic needle I always reach for Breck".

I was never a big fan of Iggy but you have to respect his impact on rock. Personally I don't think of him as a punk rocker but can understand his influence.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:I was never a big fan of Iggy but you have to respect his impact on rock. Personally I don't think of him as a punk rocker but can understand his influence.

G

Well,in the early years of the Stooges (68-7ish),the term "punk rock" hadn't been coined yet,however if you get the chance read "Wonderland Ave." by Danny Sugarman,Iggy was "punk" before their even was punk.

The same has been said about Motorhead, which is quite a stretch. They all do have bad complexions though.

G

Motorhead had a very Raw stripped down sound compared to earlier Heavy Metal acts. At the time they where probably the fastest metal band around as well, and like punk they rejected overblown and overlong songs in favor of very short (by comparison) numbers.

It's not hard to see how they where linked with Punk. They certainly had more in common with bands like The Sex Pistiols than they had with bands like Deep Purple.

Albatross wrote:

whatwhat wrote:
No, he had a profound impact on rock music and Nirvana pretty much broke through an entire sub genre (grunge) singlehandedly.

This shows that you have very little knowledge of music history. This just became a pointless argument. Goodbye.

Are you fething around here or what? Claiming that by stating Nirvana pretty much broke through grunge and made a profound impact on rock music means I have "little knowledge of music history," to me proves it is you who "have very little knowledge of music history."

LuciusAR wrote:Motorhead had a very Raw stripped down sound compared to earlier Heavy Metal acts. At the time they where probably the fastest metal band around as well, and like punk they rejected overblown and overlong songs in favor of very short (by comparison) numbers.

It's not hard to see how they where linked with Punk. They certainly had more in common with bands like The Sex Pistiols than they had with bands like Deep Purple.

Many years ago (late 80's) Motorhead did several shows with N.Y.C Hardcore punk band Agnostic Front,musical stylings were very simaler,I've always considered Motorhead to be a great band and a close cousin to punk.

whatwhat wrote:Are you fething around here or what? Claiming that by stating Nirvana pretty much broke through grunge and made a profound impact on rock music means I have "little knowledge of music history," to me proves it is you who "have very little knowledge of music history."

I stand by what I said. You are a fanboy romanticist, the type of person who believes that rock 'n' roll started when Elvis walked into Sun studios. The fact is, Nirvana weren't even the first Grunge band to sign to a Major label.

You wrote this:

Nirvana pretty much broke through an entire sub genre (grunge) singlehandedly.

Which is bollocks. There is no such thing as an overnight success, and no-one breaks through a whole sub-genre of music single-handedly. Even if you discount the bands that directly influenced Nirvana's music (The Pixies, The Melvins, Mudhoney, Sonic Youth), Soundgarden signed to a Major label in 1988. Don't base your knowledge of Grunge on 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'.

My knowledge of music history is pretty good - I am a scholar of Popular Musicology.

That's funny... Soundgarden? Mudhoney?

Neil Young is to grunge what Iggy Pop is to punk. He was it before it knew what it was.

Very true.

Im thinking Johnny Cash covering Your Own Personal Jesus and Crazy Train.

G

Albatross wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Are you fething around here or what? Claiming that by stating Nirvana pretty much broke through grunge and made a profound impact on rock music means I have "little knowledge of music history," to me proves it is you who "have very little knowledge of music history."

I stand by what I said. You are a fanboy romanticist, the type of person who believes that rock 'n' roll started when Elvis walked into Sun studios. The fact is, Nirvana weren't even the first Grunge band to sign to a Major label.

You wrote this:

Nirvana pretty much broke through an entire sub genre (grunge) singlehandedly.

Which is bollocks. There is no such thing as an overnight success, and no-one breaks through a whole sub-genre of music single-handedly. Even if you discount the bands that directly influenced Nirvana's music (The Pixies, The Melvins, Mudhoney, Sonic Youth), Soundgarden signed to a Major label in 1988. Don't base your knowledge of Grunge on 'Smells Like Teen Spirit'.

My knowledge of music history is pretty good - I am a scholar of Popular Musicology.

For the record, I'm not a "fanboy" of Nirvana, I would say I listen to their music purposefully on a yearly basis about none times. That doesn't mean I can't respect their status as a contributor in music history.

And yes one group can make major steps towards breaking through a genre, which Nirvana did. Do notice how I said "pretty much" before that statement. I'm not claiming they did all the work on their own. I certainly don't think Soundgarden did much to the same effect. Nor do I believe, like you seem to, that because a band from a certain music genre has signed to a major label that therefore the genre has broken through. Off the top of my head I can think of about five dubstep artists signed to major labels, dubstep, a genre of music which most people haven't even heard of let alone broken through.

Also I never claimed they created grunge which you seem to think I am suggesting by claiming I'm "the type of person who believes that rock 'n' roll started when Elvis walked into Sun studios" or bringing up The Pixies, The Melvins, Mudhoney and Sonic Youth influences in grunge as a counter argument. Breaking through a genre into mainstream is not creating one. I am not suggesting Nirvana created grunge.

And ftr I am a scholar of a vinyl collection of over 500 records 90% of which I would bet my life you haven't heard of, have held 3 long term residencies as a dj in clubs throughout the uk and in every case been a purveyor of underground non mainstream music and also I acknowledge when people say they are "a scholar of Popular Musicology" they are probably not listening to music on the same vibe I am.

And this, this will astound you - me personally, I don't actually like Nirvanas music. Shock horror.

@whatwhat

Me either, really.

You claim not to be a 'fanboy' then go on to mention that you own over 500 vinyl records (I'm guessing they're white labels..), most of which I wouldn't have heard of?



I have no real interest in getting into a dick measuring contest with you - I was merely retorting to your claim that I have no knowledge of music history, by pointing out that in fact I'm studying it at degree level, and would probably have a deeper understanding of the subject than you. In fact Popular Musicology is a relatively new field of study at this level, and I'm one of a handful of people studying it in the UK. It's that new.

And I seriously have no interest in getting into flamewars with you every time we post in the same thread, so I'll temper my tone. Whether or not you want to is up to you.

Perhaps calling you a 'fanboy romanticist' WAS a bit harsh - what I should have said is that it was the type of thing a romanticist would SAY. I have to deal with that sort of mythology almost on a daily basis, and it's tricky to seperate the facts from the apocrypha. Historians have to get to the cold hard truth, and avoid sentimentality.
We are also taught (and I firmly believe this) that the concept of 'mainstream' and 'subculture' are myths unhelpful to the study of cultural theory. As far as Grunge was concerned, 'Smells Like Teen Spirit' WAS a major pop hit - but this is down to several factors. Remove any of them, and the record is NOT a hit:

MTV/The music video (the Grunge aesthetic, The 'hey! they dress like me!' effect)
Butch Vigs production (made what was an extremely raw and disjointed demo, slicker, poppier - LOADS of 'fridge buzz')
Dave Grohls drumming (made it more danceable - crucial to making it an rock-club staple, the Chad Channing demo was looser, jazzier)
Oh, and the actual song.

Yes, as you correctly identified, other bands laid the groundwork - but you can't dismiss out of hand, the importance of Soundgarden signing to a Major Label. If they hadn't have, Geffen would never have taken a chance on Nirvana. If they hadn't have done that, none of the factors that made 'Teen Spirit' a hit (apart from the song!) would have taken place. Soundgarden's decent sales for 'Louder Than Love', and subsequent tour with Guns 'n' Roses, meant that Majors began picking up Grunge bands. Nirvana was one of those bands.

And I HAVE heard of Dubstep.

Albatross wrote:
In fact Popular Musicology is a relatively new field of study at this level, and I'm one of a handful of people studying it in the UK. It's that new.

What do you do with a degree in popular musicology? Is it like studying art history, where you go on to operate the frier at mcdonalds? Seriously though, I'm not sure I understand the point of offering a degree in the subject, nor what value having such a degree adds to your employability post-college.

@Redbeard - The short answer is 'Teaching'. The subject takes in aspects of cultural and musical theory, in addition to critical thinking/writing. There is a heavy accent on musical history. I'm planning on becoming a professional academic - writing books and journal articles, publishing theses etc. Ultimately, I want to progress to Phd level, and teach in higher education. As it's a relatively new field, there is little competition here in the UK. There are whole areas of study in which one could break new ground.

Teachers are pretty decently paid - at least, compared to burger flippers..

I assume you don't understand the point of degrees in Philosophy, History, Art, Music, Geography or Sociology, either...

Albatross wrote:I assume you don't understand the point of degrees in Philosophy, History, Art, Music, Geography or Sociology, either...

I understand the point of some of those. My brother, for example, has two degrees in music. He's the principle percussionist for the Philadelphia opera. So, you know, get a degree in music to be a classical musician, makes perfect sense. And, if your goal is to teach in academia, then clearly, you have to start somewhere. At least you've picked a field where there isn't much competition.

Maybe it is different in the UK. In the US, the average degree costs a lot of money, and the state doesn't cover it (do they still in the UK?). There has been more than one study done here that shows that the economical reality is that getting a degree in philosophy, sociology, or art can set a person back many years, not raising their earning potential, but stacking them with tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in student loans. In these cases, you're right, I don't understand it. If you want to be a teacher, get a teaching degree, with a minor in the field that interests you. If you want to be an artist, start making art. If you want to be a musician, outside the classical world, start playing music. And so on.

At my office, we have had a number of temp workers sitting at the reception desk, answering the phone. This is, for all intents and purposes, a crap job. They're temp, so no benefits (a big deal in the US, where there is no state health coverage), and they make barely enough to put them past the poverty line. The receptionists we've had in the past year or so have all held college degrees in things like musical theater, english lit (a PhD, no less, which just goes to show that those academia jobs aren't easy to land), sociology, and (I'm not making this up) art history. Rightfully, this job should be held by someone with no more than a high school diploma. The receptionist answers, and routes, phones, makes coffee, and puts mail in the right mail slot. It's not rocket science. But, because of degree inflation over here, they keep hiring college graduates to do the job. What is even scarier, though, is that college graduates want this job.

I'm sure that having a degree in art history, musical theater, or popular musicology makes you a well-rounded human being, and interesting to talk to. But, I cannot see the point in spending four years studying such a subject in college, especially if you have to pay for it, when the economic reality is that such a degree doesn't make you more employable. I love both history and music, but I'd never get a degree in either. It's just not a good decision. I can learn all the history I want to know by reading books.

@Redbeard - It does work slightly differently here. Funnily enough, this is being discussed on another OT thread!

But yeah, it's much cheaper - the state offers quite a lot of assistance too. Teaching works a little differently here as well, in that most people have to study a named subject at degree level, then gain a seperate teaching qualification.
But useless degrees? I actually agree with you here - things like English and Music are considered pretty useless here unless you want to teach those subjects. Music is actually a shortage area for teaching in the UK - presumably because many music graduates are not cut out for it - but English is massively oversubscribed as far as teaching is concerned.

The study of Popular Music is currently exploding in the UK - most courses fill their places with ease. Such courses have need for Popular Musicology lecturers, and at present are relying on people with more broad musical qualifications, or people from outside - in fact two of my lecturers are from the USA. Plus the specialised degree in Popular Musicology, will no doubt expand, as it has other uses (you can use it to teach at secondary level, music journalism...) - as one of the first Phds in the subject, it's not inconceivable that I might get the chance to set up a course and head up a department myself in the future.

A terrifying thought, I'm sure you'll agree...

But why is the study of popular music exploding? You stated above that things like English and Music are considered pretty useless, so why are people lining up to take courses in them?

Unless we fall back on the idea that most university students really just want easy, fun classes, and aren't in it for the education. It's probably considered an easy class.

I mean, you put the word "popular" music in there, and you remove most of the interesting stuff. It's not like you're studying John Cage's compositions and how they challenge the definition of what music is.

Back to the previous topic for my two cents: I love me some Soundgarden, and I can certainly recognize that many factors went into Nirvana’s success, but they were certainly a breakthrough band, with some excellent talent and songwriting, and the leading face of grunge’s popularity.

Redbeard wrote:But why is the study of popular music exploding? You stated above that things like English and Music are considered pretty useless, so why are people lining up to take courses in them?

Unless we fall back on the idea that most university students really just want easy, fun classes, and aren't in it for the education. It's probably considered an easy class.

BA Popular Music and Recording IS considered fun and easy by many incoming students - those students get a very rude awakening. Music degrees suffer from this problem in general here, as far as I can see. I transfered from that type of music degree to my present degree because I wanted a more 'academic' base for my studies. I have been performing as a musician for many years, and so wasn't getting that much out of it. But the overall standard of the incoming students was appalling. Simply appalling. Music is a very difficult subject consisting of many different elements, but kids seem to think it's a free-ride.

And English is a subject many people take if they don't know what else to do. It is massively over-subscribed with people who have little interest in the actual subject.

Redbeard wrote:I mean, you put the word "popular" music in there, and you remove most of the interesting stuff. It's not like you're studying John Cage's compositions and how they challenge the definition of what music is.

Snobbery. And unfounded, as you have very little idea of what I'm studying. Plus, Popular culture and it's uses have shaped the modern world, most notably the USA. The history of popular music is incredibly interesting to me, so I decided to study it. Problem?

@Mannahin - Agreed on all points.

Albatross wrote:
Snobbery. And unfounded, as you have very little idea of what I'm studying. Plus, Popular culture and it's uses have shaped the modern world, most notably the USA. The history of popular music is incredibly interesting to me, so I decided to study it. Problem?

So it's history, not current popular music? I can buy that. But, at least in the US, what's currently popular is absolute tripe. It's mass-produced by corporations and pushed by giant radio-station conglomerations, more interested in a look anything interesting.

I mean, the elevator in my building has a view screen that shows random information windows. Top "adult contemporary songs" listed... Miley Cyrus. She's not even an adult, and she's just another in a long-line of barbie dolls. So, yeah, I'm a bit contemptuous of the idea of studying Hannah Montana.

Redbeard wrote:So, yeah, I'm a bit contemptuous of the idea of studying Hannah Montana.

At least, not 'til she's 18!

Seriously though, I know what you mean - it sounds like 'studying Pop'! Popular Music encompasses everything from Blackface Minstrelsy (the first truly 'American' popular music form), through Jazz, Prog-rock, Blues.... it encompasses a lot of complex stuff - deep musicological analysis of the various musical texts, Musemics, semiology/semiotics, cultural theory... It's pretty cool.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UofaK7qBOCk

Sid, finer than you.

Sid,not quite Eddie Cochran...but still pretty fething cool.

Redbeard wrote:

Albatross wrote:
In fact Popular Musicology is a relatively new field of study at this level, and I'm one of a handful of people studying it in the UK. It's that new.

What do you do with a degree in popular musicology? Is it like studying art history, where you go on to operate the frier at mcdonalds?

Even though you were joking it's alarmingly true in the uk that the vast majority of graduates, especially those in specialist and contemporary courses go on to work in industries often entirely unrelated.

RIP to Sid. Somewhat interesting that one of Pink Floyd's founding members was also named similar (Syd Barrett) and also had a pretty crazy life story.

When I grew up I was a wrestling fan , had no idea that this guy got his name from The Sex Pistols:

Actually at one point Syd Barrett was aproached by the Sex Pistols to produce an album,I would have loved to hear the end colaberation had he accepted.

Concerning the wrestler "Sid Vicious",as a teenager (a mohawked punk teen I should add),I recall being at a friends house,and hearing on the t.v. that "Sid Vicious" was about to eneter the ring (my friend was watching wrestling),I burst into barely controled laughter when a huge steroidal behemoth appeared using Sids moniker.

Sid the wrestler was AWESOMO!!!

G