Conference napalm::guitar

    1. that routine is more like 25 years old (The Who did it in the
       mid sixties)
    
    2. yeah, on a large scale it seems like style has precedence over
       substance. Witness the success of rap music (which my wife
       accurately labels as "the professional wrestling of the music
       world). But there is a lot of local talent who are worth listening
       to (not the guys you saw, obviously).
    
    3. College kids are a lot more wet behind the ears than they think.
       Don't take them too seriously. A lot of them would probably vote
       for Clinton, too.
    
    - Dave

    re: "they took music to a new level"
    
    I usually parse these types of statements as "they took (the speaker)
    to a new level".
    
    When you're 18 years old you can make all sorts of discoveries that
    "nobody ever saw before". Everyone does. We all discover the same
    things and declare them to be new, because they are. Relatively
    speaking.
    
    Is it the future of music? Nah, just a phase we all go/went thru.
    It's a lot of fun to experience, but once you've done it, it seems
    kinda trite...
    
    Edd

Can you say "retro"?  Sure you can.

This didn't start 15 years ago.  The Who did it at Monterey in ~'67 (which would
make it at least 25 years).  It might be performance art, but I doubt if it is
music.

Jim

notes collision big time.  This may generate a flurry of replies.

Jim

    re: Dave
    
    Regarding your #3, the sad thing is these guys play out ALL the time
    in Boston.  So there exposure was not limited to one college pub show.
    
    I heard that they have been signed. 
    
    (probably not to a big label, but signed nevertheless).
    
    chUck
    

    Well, I think music *is* heading in that direction (again).  Youngsters
    are rediscovering Zappa, Beefheart and George Clinton again and now
    that college radio has created a base for these acts to build on, they
    are coming out of the woodwork.
    
    When I listen to WZBC (who alternate between "alternative rock" in the
    daytime and "who-knows-if-it's-music-or-my-radio's-broken" at night) I
    hear a lot of stuff that is total garbage and a few pearls sandwiched
    in between.  There's probably more free-form music out there now than
    anyone could have dreamed of during the heyday of ESP-disk.
    
    Rock is getting old and grey and these newer acts are a sign that
    things need to change.  For us old folks, the general direction it
    seems to be going in, rap, electronic noise, etc. seems pretty
    forbidding and non-musical but then that's probably what big band fans
    thought about Elvis.  Hard to imagine with the perspective of *today*
    how a record like "Rock Around the Clock" could have been considered
    subversive.  It's like the kids want something new and different but
    haven't found it yet (whaling songs, maybe?).
    
    Of course, some of what is "new and different" is so retro people don't
    even realize it.  I recently heard a great song by a band called Paper
    Squares that was more 60s-sounding than anything I actually heard in
    the 60s!  There's always a lot of retreading going on, and selling out
    (who coulda guessed that the Del Fuegos really wanted to be the next
    Tom Petty...for that matter who coulda guessed Tom Petty would become
    the next Bob Seger  8^)  8^)  8^)) for commercial gain is a common
    shtick... quick, how many times have you heard "Well, we did it because
    the record company told us to, but we feel the album really doesn't
    represent us, etc.".  
    
    The technological breakthroughs in recording and MIDI gear which allow
    kids to make records in their bedrooms has a lot to do with this
    explosion.  The DIY approach immediately commands respect, although
    here in the US a British accent is even more important  8^)  8^)  8^)
    
    I certainly welcome new music and realize you have to put up with
    listening to a lot of junk to find the good stuff, that is never going
    to change.  Freely improvised music is a difficult thing to create. 
    Look at the Dead, who have worked together for years, and *still* have
    nights where the imrovs just don't gel.  Masters like Coltrane and
    Miles had periods where the audiences didn't have a *clue*, and after
    they died the first thought of many listeners was "Where would they
    have gone if they could have completed the journey?" 
    
    I have to admit my perspective is colored by my age...it's 20 years
    since I graduated high school.  Things may be louder and faster and
    drowned in chorus and flanging but rock has grown very little in the
    last twenty years.  Compare rock in the mid fifties (Chuck Berry, Fats
    Domino, early Elvis) to 1972 (Allmans, Pink Floyd, Zappa, Sabbath) to
    today (Allmans, Pink Floyd, Zappa, Sabbath....oops I mean Kentucky
    Headhunters, Queensryche, Primus, Metallica) and tell me where the most
    progress was.  It may be hard to think of the decline of rock but it's
    inevitable and maybe this time it won't be a false alarm like the Sex
    Pistols were.
    
    							Elmer Fudd

>    If I came out on stage with 3 guitars, sawed them into pieces,
>    made a matching chair and table set out of 'em, and then smashed them
>    with a hammer - should I be called a 'musician'?  Is it 'musical'?
    
    gee, i dunno, performance musician? (where's tom janzen when u really
    need him!).
    
    I think you have to remember (somehow) what it was like to be 18 all
    over again!  You pretty much get the same stuff over and over, although
    the years 65-71 did produce some rather remarkable changes. Then again,
    between 65-71, lots of musicians were ingesting some remarkable drugs
    that were in marked contrast to the beat age of booze and weed.  
    
    Post '71 the bizz had really caught up with the culture, and it somehow
    has sounded the same ever since. (gee, wonder why?)
    
    bob

    Well, I just have to add my 2 cents to this since I'm a product of the
    Woodstock generation.  When I was in High School (mid-sixties) there
    were a lot of local bands that were pretty bad (my own included). 
    However, they were our bands and we came out to support them and we
    yelled and applauded even though they played off key and hit the wrong
    notes most of the time (plus, our parents hated them).  Interestingly
    enough, many of the kids in those bands stuck with music, learned to
    play at least half-bad, and are still at it today (although, generally
    as an avocation rather than a vocation).  
    
    Yeah, some of the stuff on MTV and in the local bars is junk, but it
    might evolve into something closer to music as the years go by.  Plus,
    it's full of energy and promise if nothing else.  There's plenty of
    good music being made today, it just might not be on MTV (but it's in
    your local CD shop and sells pretty well).  I'll listen to that until
    the kids mature a bit and learn to play their instruments, but until
    then I'll give them their space and let them evolve the same way
    everyone else does.
    
    Al who_never_did_get_to_smash_a_guitar_on_stage_and_regrets_it 

    re: .8
    
    Bob,
    
    I do remember what it's like to be 18, it wasn't THAT long ago.
    
    I have just turned 26 and I have spent most of my early/mid 20s 
    (1986 thru present) hitting as many shows (both local and large venue)
    as my paycheck would allow. 
    
    It just seems that the emphasis on the 'next' music generation seems to
    be on antics and not so much the actual MUSIC.  I am not judging EVERY
    new band from the experience, but I have seen a trend veer from the 
    ability to perform music into the ability to sloth your way through 
    something.  
    
    to quote Woody Allen (from Manhattan) refering to the public:
    
   "(their) standards have been systematically lowered over the years"
    
    Is this the case?  Or has music reached another 'Cycle' 
    (~ 15 years. the WHO ---> Sex Pistols ---> Nirvana)?
    
    chUck
    
    
    chUck
    
  

    I'm sorry,.. but although everything else kind of seems acceptable
    this lumping of the WHo in with the likes of teh Sex Pistols and
    Nirvanna just doesn't fly.
    
    
    The Who,.. expecially Townsend, were accomplished musicians. They
    trashed their instruments IMHO out of fustration at being able
    to create the ultimate noise with them. I mean,, they could all
    play their instruments for all they were worth,. .and at the end
    of the night ,.. perhaps as a indication of the fustration of the
    limitations of the **INSTRUMENTS** they would trash them,..and I
    never liked that anyway.
    
    The Nirvanna shreekers can't play worth a sh*t IMHO,.. and the Sex
    Pistols practically prided themselves on the fact that they did not
    know how to play their instruments. These people are more likely
    trashing their instruments as they reach the end of their own
    Personal limitations,.. not the limitations of the instruments,..
    but their own abailities ass musicians are tapped,.. and they then
    trash the instruments,...
    
    Perhaps the only thing linking the two is fustration. However it
    appears to me that it is done more today by the likes of Nirvanna
    as "part of the show",. or "to get the audience going" or whatever.
    It may not even be necessary that music and musicainship be part
    of the current instrument trashing mind set
    
    ..... off my soapbox for now ...
    
    								/Bill
    

It seems appropriate that the musicianship of Nirvana and the Sex Pistols 
would be compared in a note entitled "Future of Music?".

Jim (who saw a small glimmer of art in "God Save The Queen")

    Good rathole going here...
    
    I recently read books on the Who ("Hope I Die Before I Get Old" by Dave
    Marsh) and Sex Pistols ("England's Dreaming" by John Savage).
    
    As far as the Who:
    
    Townshend grew up in a musical family and Entwistle was schooled on the
    trumpet.  So, unlike many rock bands of the time, they actually had a
    very good grounding in music, which was displayed later in their
    career.   Pete Townshend wrote about meeting the Sex Pistols (Steve
    Jones and Paul Cook, anyway) in "Who Are You".  He claims to have
    begged the Pistols to take up where the Who left off and destroy rock
    and roll as it existed in 1976.  They were apparently quite surprised
    and professed to be big Who fans, which got Pete's goat (Savage's book
    also mentions this incident).
    
    On the Pistols:
    
    While not schooled as such, Savage claims that by the time they got
    around to recording, Jones, Cook and Glen Matlock were competent rock
    musicians.  Again, Malcolm McLaren tried to hide this fact because he
    wanted to push the "anybody can do it" hype.  The band was big fans of
    Slade, T. Rex (both considered sort of "bubblegum" in the UK, yes?) and
    the Faces! Matlock was actually fired because as he progressed in his
    playing, he was starting ot move away from punk rawness into more
    conventional rock.  This is what brought Sid Vicious into the band.  In
    fact, if the Pistols had not self-destructed, chances are that the
    band, minus John Lydon, would have become more conventional...only
    Lydon had natural tendencies to stir things up.
    
    Sorry, no book on Nirvana yet  8^)  8^)
    
    
    						Brian

    re: -1, -2
    
    The only comparison I was trying to make was that each group tended to
    take the previous group's antics a little farther, until we have a
    state where the antics outweigh the music.  And it seems to
    repeat itself every so many years, ie: one group is hailed as the NEXT
    BIG THING, causing the next landslide of new bands/copycats.
    

    Rock --> Mainstream rock --> Dance rock --> disco/house/club --> punk
    --> 'alternative' rock --> Rock --> Mainstream rock -->  dance rock,
    etc.                      
    
    But can groups become such a sum of their influences that they
    have NO style of their own?
                              
    re: the WHO
    
    I have a hard time believing that every time Pete Townsend smashed his
    guitar it was out of frustration caused by the limitations of his 
    instrument.
    
    
    

>    I have a hard time believing that every time Pete Townsend smashed his
>    guitar it was out of frustration caused by the limitations of his 
>    instrument.

    I agree completely!  This action was as much for theatrics when The Who
    did it as it is for anyone doing that today.  Admittedly, the scenario
    Chuck described (45 minutes of instrument destruction) sounds excessive
    (not to mention boring).  

    Hey, we have frustrations today the same as people had in the 60's. 
    That period of time had no corner on the market of the frustration of
    youth.  The energy expressed had an impact on people then and it has an
    impact on people now.  It's just that the people impacted are
    different.  You and I might think trashing a guitar on stage to be
    passe, but it's because we've seen it done a hundred times before.  To
    some kid just getting into music, it's as fresh as us watching The Who
    doing that in the 60's!

    No offense intended or anything, but while Pete Townsend is one of my
    all time favorites, an absolutely *amazing* songwriter, he never came
    close to reaching the limitations of a guitar.  I think he'd probably
    say the same thing himself...

    Greg

    
    re:.15 - you're right,the WHO did itas a gimmick.  This the Band
    that first toured America opening for Herman's Hermits. With that
    venue, i'm sure there were not too many WHO style fans present,
    although the smashing bit did get them recognized.
    
    perhaps it's  as simple as if you can't play music, then play war?

Of course the most recent evolution of form-over-substance is Milli Vanilli
where the artists didn't even create any music (not even any sound).  Perhaps
Andy Warhol would have considered this to be the pinacle of performance art.

Jim

    OK,.. I stand corrrected on two counts
    
    1) .15 explaiuns that the ony connection was that one group was taking
    	the pervious groups antics further,... I'll grant that. 
    
    2) I'll also grant that the WHo also did it as a gimmick... like the 
      pistols,.. and the new pistols,. um,. excuse me,.. Nirvanna :-)
    
    BUT
    
    The fact remains that the Who could play and the others could/can not!
    In my humble opinion of course. Perhaps the pistols fancied themsleves
    as "competent rock musicians",.. not me. To me,. they were just mad
    hackers whose lack of musicianship was exceeded only by their bad
    attitudes.
    
    Again,. especially this last paragraph is MHO,. and definite rat hole
    continuance material. It does seem an intersting discussion though...
    
    								/Bill
    

    
    
    	I think the reason its all turning round is that people want to
    	be entertained, 2 people and a bunch'a keyboards doesn't cut it the
    	way it did a year/two years ago. Nowadays what with the recession
    	and all people want a show when they go out for what might be the
        only time that week........don't under estimate us new 'punk' bands
    	we wanna play out instruments to the best of our abilities but
    	maybe because we've only been doing it for a couple of years we're
    	not going to drive anybody nutz with amazing virtuoso perfomances..
    
    	so we'll shoot ya with water pistols instead, set off a 21 party	
    	popper salute, wear bra's on our heads...it doesn't matter, if
    	we're up there making pillocks of ourselves and having a good 
    	time the feelings gonna spread and it does.....
    
    	So here we are, now entertain us seems to be the thing of the
    	moment.....
    
    
    	(ramble, ramble....)
    
    	J
    
    

    
    
    	Just an addendum to -1........don't get me wrong, for both the 
    	band I'm in and all the other local bands around the music is
    	the number 1 thing....just where we lack musically we try to
    	entertain in other ways.
    
    

    With all this discussion of smashing guitars on stage over the last
    25 years or so,  I was surprised there was no mention of Hendrix.
    I saw Jimi live in '68 and can remember being disappointed at the
    end of his show when he began trashing a beautiful sunburst strat
    and his stacks of marshalls.  It kind of detracted from the music
    to me. Interestingly, before he died, in an interview he stated that
    he wished he could get away from the smashing hype, and have his
    audience simply appreciate the music, but he felt 'pressured' to
    provide the standard recognition gimmick.  It's possible he felt
    differently at Monterey when he first set fire to his guitar and
    fueled (no pun intended) the trend. In Jimi's case, I don't think
    we can support the limitation theory... perhaps he was frustrated
    about something though.
    
    Steve_who_shook_his_hand_and_got_a_small_piece_of_the_smashed_strat

    
    
       Speaking of the pistols turning conventional over time...
    
       Have you listened to P.I.L.'s last two CDs?  Not bad.
    (Opinion.)   Rise, Body, Seattle come to mind at this second.
    
       Rick.
    
    

    
    
    Steve Jones was actually a decent guitarist, he could certainly play.
    Maybe not as well as your basic hero, but he could play.  In fact,
    Jones made a living playing sessions for pop musicians after the
    Professionals bit the dust.  He played on a couple of Joan Jett albums
    and others I don't recall. At any rate, seminalism was the whole point
    for Jones, Cook and Lydon, so he's probably a bad example anyway. Did
    anyone else hear the rumor that the Who hired a lead guitarist for
    their last tour - he played alot of leads off stage - because Townsend
    can't hear well enough to play 'em anymore or some such reason?
    
    Chuck

    I don't think that was a "rumor" about the Who having another
    guitarist.  I saw one of their concerts from the last tour on TV and
    there was clearly another guitar player ON STAGE who played most of the
    leads.  He was kind of in the background, but was certainly not off
    stage or hidden from the audience.
    
    Greg

    Re: 24
    
    No rumor...Townshend played only acoustic for much of the tour, and an
    electric lead player was one of the many sidepersons on the stage with
    the quartet.  The reason was Townshend's ears are so bad that he can't
    deal with the onstage volume level.  He played the shows behind some
    plexiglas baffles.
    
    						Brian