Damn. I’ve never quite understood the reason why it bothers people so much how music is classified. You know what? You like it, you listen to it. Who gives a shit what it’s called?
And this is coming from a music major and a serious music history student. Perhaps all of those years of music analysis have eroded my brain, but I don’t get why it’s such a big deal. Yes, it’s nice to have classifications for educational purposes, but I’m not going to start screaming if someone puts Camille Saint-Saens into the “Classical” category even though he’s a Romantic composer, or if Mozart’s classified as “Baroque” (well, yeah, that does bug me slightly, but I don’t get hyper over it - I just explain that Mozart wasn’t around during the Baroque era. Shit, at least the person knows enough to be in the same general time period).
It’s music. It’s meant to be heard and enjoyed. Anything else is secondary.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got to go back to annoying my co-worker with showtunes and the BBC.
the irony of the thread-starting peeve of course is that the “spirit” of punk is a crass rejection of formalizing and convention (i.e. music shouldn’t be limited by established/socially approved convention – if that’s not redundant – rather it should be free/anarchistic expression), so to complain that certain bands aren’t really punk is to establish punk as an institution with conventions that must be met. very “unpunk.” not to mention that punk is the joke that ended up getting taken seriously – and takes itself seriously …
Ok, first of all let him listen to whatever he wants, no music is better than any other music is pure opinion.
Second the who do seem like the were the begennings of punk to me. They played some what simplified rock and roll, and seemed to have a hard edge. Another band that seemed to have this edge was led zepplin.
Quit being such a music snob, it will make people uncomfortable to listen te music around you.
Damn snobs anaylize the music, judge the trends of music, judge the people that listen to it blah blah blah fucking blah etc and do anything else except enjoy the music.
For a type of music that’s supposed to be the music for the masses, punk fans can be a snobby lot. I understand that attitude from prog fans, but I just don’t get punk snobbery.
I just wanted to say that this concept made me burst out laughing. Thank you.
I remember one girl in high school who used to nag at me that listening to certain bands made me a wannabe. A wannabe what? Person who listens to music?
I like the Backstreet Boys and I enjoy “Shake Ya Tailfeather” quite a bit.
Oddly enough I’m not a mindless idiot who enjoys whatever music “they” tell me to enjoy. Really I’m not.
To me music is music. Whether it be Britney Spears or the most obscure punk garage band the elitiest punk snop listens to it all has a place in the music industry. As long as someone enjoys it then how’s it hurting you?
I grew up with this “categorizing” crap in school. All my friends wanted to know what radio station I listened to, so they could judge whether it was deemed “acceptable” or not. Of course they had fits when I told them that I only listened to the Classical station, didn’t know about their other stations, didn’t want to listen to their music, because I was very happy with my own, thankyouverymuch. So many of the other kids could not accept that. They had to have an “opinion” of my musical choices, they had to “approve” of my musical choices, and all I wanted them to do was shut up and leave me alone.
I still feel that way. I don’t want to deprive anyone else of their enjoyment of whatever music they enjoy, and I expect the same in return. I don’t give a shit what other people listen to—often times it just sounds like crap to me anyway (i.e. is not my cup of tea), but if they like it, fine. Why would I want to rain on someone else’s parade?
Are our lives so full of great things that we can afford to crap on each other for something relatively trivial as music tastes? Why do some of us want to ruin it for someone else who dares to like something that we don’t like?
And to address the OP: Shit, man, all your music sounds it would be shitty to me! So what does that prove? Who cares?
Okay, to buck the trend, I’m going to support Icebrand. He had a peeve, and he posted it in the place for peeves. Why don’t the rest of you wankers sod off and let him be as peeved as he wants to be? (And just for the record, I am on the same page as him with each of his peeves. Anything put out by a megacorp has no right to call itself “punk” anything.)
You should be happy that a company was willing to dump some money and time into a band you enjoy listening to, otherwise you wouldn’t have heard it at all.
Would that have been better?
Oh wait, maybe you are saying a band “sells out” if they get picked up by a major label?
Yeah the horror of having your music plastered all over MTV whilst legions of fans snap up all your records, and you reap buckets of money off of it.
I think he/she was just saying that, by definition, a punk band can’t be on a huge record label. Just like, by definition, a band isn’t technically indie if it’s not on an independent label. At least, that’s assuming the definition of punk music involves some eschewing of corporations in general, which I don’t think is too far out there.
Little Richard didn’t invent everything, even though he was a great performer. However, if it wasn’t for the sexual whatyouchamacallit of Elvis, and the fact that Elvis was white, had a great voice, and was a fine looking southern boy is what got everything started. Even Little Richard won’t deny this, so lay off it.
