Is it just me

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Is it just me

    Or does there seem to be a lot more one hit wonders today than in decades past?  There just seems to be no consistency with bands in today's R&R world.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Tcal, it's good to hear from you. We haven't conversed in a while.

    You've certainly got it right.

    Personally, this is my take on the music business in this time period

    Like everything else in this money-grabbing world run by CEOs and Wall Street, music ( sports, movies, T.V. , magazines....etc....the whole entertainment business) is less concerned with quality and content and more concerned with the dollars , the ratings and everything the greedy people worry about ( pretty much, money, money and more money).

    While groups like the Beatles, Pink Floyd, Jefferson Airplane , Santana, etc. did eventually end up being financially successful, none of these bands had a guarantee of monetary success. They all pretty much started creating ART....and their art turned into profits ( for someone ). Today's music skips the art portion and goes right for the wallet. Create music that has no creativity, but it has a short-term appeal that makes the sale. Once these modern pop singers ( who are essentially "one trick ponies") has their one big hit....they attempt to recreate it. You can only recreate or recycle sh*t so many times before people realize it is sh*t. So, it's on to the next "big thing."

    Perfect example is Avril Lavigne. She had a big hit in the 90's. Weird Al did a spoof of it. Really not a bad song, but played so often it stinks already. She was a one-trick pny and they couldn't get more than one hit out of her. Once she fell out of the spotlight....she was yesterday's news and along comes the Gagas and the Katies and all the other pretty gals singing shallow love songs and such.

    People are just not creative anymore. They want money, first , second , third and fourth.....nobody does anything for the love of it anymore. Perhaps we witnessed a resurgence of artistic talent that the world will never see again. But, lets' hope not.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

    Or does there seem to be a lot more one hit wonders today than in decades past?  There just seems to be no consistency with bands in today's R&R world.



    I don't think so. It must be you. Or maybe it is me. There have always been plenty of one hit wonders and fleeting musical trends. Change is constant, especially in pop music. Our perceptions are skewed by our taste and when when we grew up.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Hey Zilla, great explanation.  It's hard to imagine Jim Morrison giving a s*it about making money or selling concert tickets.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Think about it dd.  Take the 70's for example.  I can name 10 bands off the top of my head with multiple great albums.

    Zeppelin  Stones  Who  Floyd  AC/DC  Eagles  Doors  CCR  Neil Young  Black Sabbath

     

    Now name 2 from the 00's?  I can't name 1.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

    Think about it dd.  Take the 70's for example.  I can name 10 bands off the top of my head with multiple great albums.

    Zeppelin  Stones  Who  Floyd  AC/DC  Eagles  Doors  CCR  Neil Young  Black Sabbath

     

    Now name 2 from the 00's?  I can't name 1.



    Same with me, but maybe we're a little out of touch with the newer rock stuff too.  Your point of reference is the same as mine.  And for me the rock music of the late 60's and 70's will never be touched.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:

     

    Think about it dd.  Take the 70's for example.  I can name 10 bands off the top of my head with multiple great albums.

    Zeppelin  Stones  Who  Floyd  AC/DC  Eagles  Doors  CCR  Neil Young  Black Sabbath

     

    Now name 2 from the 00's?  I can't name 1.

     



    Same with me, but maybe we're a little out of touch with the newer rock stuff too.  Your point of reference is the same as mine.  And for me the rock music of the late 60's and 70's will never be touched.

     



    Exactly my point. We are all limited by our own pecreptions. I know virtually nothing about today's music, so I can't really comment on it. Personally, I prefer rock, blues, and soul of the 50's thru early 70's. Nothing since then has matched that music, in my view, but I pretty much stopped listening to new music in the 90's. I'm old and out of touch.

    I also got into swing jazz, particularly Duke Ellington. I don't think any American music has reached the heights of Ellington's bands since then. But that's just me.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Today I heard a couple of songs Hfx, Neon Trees - Everybody talks then Gavin Degraw - Not over you.  Both catchy songs but what else have I heard from either? 

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Well, if you like Zeppelin and Black Crowes and AC/DC, this band is probably worth checking out.  This song has a very good Zep riff and the guy has the pipes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtIZpnIxR1Q

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Very interesting topic.

    I wonder if maybe there aren't MORE one-hit wonders than the past -- there were a lot of one- or two-wonders back in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Maybe it's simply there isn't as many lasting bands.

    Z -- Not a bad analysis, but I have a little different -- less cynical take for lack of a better description. There has always been performers that were corporately managed, created and built in pop music. (And I'm not talking about bands that are often labeled corporate rock). There were plenty of greedy performers back in the day and plenty of greedy corporate music execs and managers.

    Remember -- The Beatles had to fight early to perform their own music, because the record company wanted to control things. Jimmy Page, when he was a studio guitarist, performed on early Who recordings because the record company didn't trust Pete Townsend. Record companies always wanted to control the artists and create the performer.

    Bands like The Who and The Beatles and others, of course, overcame that control to produce their own stuff. But they, like most bands, wanted to make money. Remember, Page owned The Yardbirds name by the time the band disbanded and Peter Grant used heavy-handed tactics to make sure Zeppelin weren't cheated.

    But there were plenty of performers who were groomed by the record companies back then like there are today.

    The difference, I believe, is the nature of the music scene. Rock bands in the 1960s that didn't want to conform to record companies or AM-pop music singles scene had the emergence of FM radio as an outlet -- Album rock stations. So you had pop music stations and rock stations.

    The Who had some hits, but not any (I believe) No. 1 hits, and Zeppelin never released singles, and Pink Floyd never made much of a mark on pop charts, but all three were among the most successful bands because of FM rock stations that helped them cultivate their fans.

    The problem today, I believe is two-fold.

    1. Short attention spans of younger fans -- always searching for the next cool thing.

    2. And this is bigger -- the ease at which bands can get their stuff out there via YouTube, social media, self-recording songs (even an album) and releasing it online, rather than have the cost of producing the vinyl record or the compact disc. So this puts a lot of stuff out there, that the "artists" in the business get lost in the crowd. Many current bands seem to have small niche of fans, and these are the kind of bands that might have found outlets on FM rock stations 40 years ago. I deal heavily with teens, and they name all sorts of groups that I've never heard of and when I look them up, they're really not well known or have had only modest success. In other words, interests are often heavily diverse.

    To get notice above the crowd, you need the financial muscle of the PR that a record company can provide, and if they're going to spend the money, they're going to control more of what you do.

    So some performers can get enough clout to have some independence, just like the old days, but many still end up beholden to the record companies.

    And it's too simple to say people aren't creative any more. But think about this. If you're 20 and starting a band, what new genres are out there? When Jimmy Page was forming Zeppelin, there was barely anything similar out there. He just built -- like others -- on blues and rockabilly.

    Other bands of that era created music other genres. All the great bands of the 1960s, '70s and '80s created so much material over the past 40 years that it's a bit unfair to criticize newer performers for not being creative. Yes, the older bands were creative because there were so many veins to mine in the world of music. So now, really, what's left?

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to royf19's comment:

     

    Very interesting topic.

    I wonder if maybe there aren't MORE one-hit wonders than the past -- there were a lot of one- or two-wonders back in the 1960s, '70s and '80s. Maybe it's simply there isn't as many lasting bands.

    Z -- Not a bad analysis, but I have a little different -- less cynical take for lack of a better description. There has always been performers that were corporately managed, created and built in pop music. (And I'm not talking about bands that are often labeled corporate rock). There were plenty of greedy performers back in the day and plenty of greedy corporate music execs and managers.

    Remember -- The Beatles had to fight early to perform their own music, because the record company wanted to control things. Jimmy Page, when he was a studio guitarist, performed on early Who recordings because the record company didn't trust Pete Townsend. Record companies always wanted to control the artists and create the performer.

    Bands like The Who and The Beatles and others, of course, overcame that control to produce their own stuff. But they, like most bands, wanted to make money. Remember, Page owned The Yardbirds name by the time the band disbanded and Peter Grant used heavy-handed tactics to make sure Zeppelin weren't cheated.

    But there were plenty of performers who were groomed by the record companies back then like there are today.

    The difference, I believe, is the nature of the music scene. Rock bands in the 1960s that didn't want to conform to record companies or AM-pop music singles scene had the emergence of FM radio as an outlet -- Album rock stations. So you had pop music stations and rock stations.

    The Who had some hits, but not any (I believe) No. 1 hits, and Zeppelin never released singles, and Pink Floyd never made much of a mark on pop charts, but all three were among the most successful bands because of FM rock stations that helped them cultivate their fans.

    The problem today, I believe is two-fold.

    1. Short attention spans of younger fans -- always searching for the next cool thing.

    2. And this is bigger -- the ease at which bands can get their stuff out there via YouTube, social media, self-recording songs (even an album) and releasing it online, rather than have the cost of producing the vinyl record or the compact disc. So this puts a lot of stuff out there, that the "artists" in the business get lost in the crowd. Many current bands seem to have small niche of fans, and these are the kind of bands that might have found outlets on FM rock stations 40 years ago. I deal heavily with teens, and they name all sorts of groups that I've never heard of and when I look them up, they're really not well known or have had only modest success. In other words, interests are often heavily diverse.

    To get notice above the crowd, you need the financial muscle of the PR that a record company can provide, and if they're going to spend the money, they're going to control more of what you do.

    So some performers can get enough clout to have some independence, just like the old days, but many still end up beholden to the record companies.

    And it's too simple to say people aren't creative any more. But think about this. If you're 20 and starting a band, what new genres are out there? When Jimmy Page was forming Zeppelin, there was barely anything similar out there. He just built -- like others -- on blues and rockabilly.

    Other bands of that era created music other genres. All the great bands of the 1960s, '70s and '80s created so much material over the past 40 years that it's a bit unfair to criticize newer performers for not being creative. Yes, the older bands were creative because there were so many veins to mine in the world of music. So now, really, what's left?

     ***************************************************************************



    Good post Roy. You touch on some interesting topics.  An off-shoot of this issue came up briefly in the Roots Rockers thread where a difference of opinion on the Black Keys led to a discussion on wether or not, much of today's popular music may be watered down/trendy because the level of competition may not be as strong as it has been in the past. 

    I agree that it is way too simple to say that people are not creative anymore, music was different in the 60's,70's 80's where bands like the Stones, Who, Floyd, Led Zep, were not only competing against each other, but constantly having to raise the bar in order to get played and sell albums. Same with the early 90's. with Pearl Jam, Nirvana, GNR, Soungarden AIC, etc... If it wasnt good, most stations would not touch it, regardless who you were. Most garbage never saw the light of day, which is in stark contrast to today.

    Technology and the internet may be contributing to this watering down by changing the way we see and get our music. With so much information, and choices available with a click of a mouse, it has made it more difficult for better bands to stand out among the dreck imo Good, or bad, every Tom, Dick and Harry now has an opportunity to get their music out immediately, and if something is lucky enough to catch our attention, even if it blows, it can spread like wildfire, and dillute the market. There are many good bands out there, but now it just takes a little more digging to find them.

    While it may be hard to dispute the greatness of the music that came out of creative and artistic periods discussed above, it would be foolish for anyone to discount the creativity going on right now.  There are a lot of great bands making music in all genres, and there are plenty who have strung a few good albums together since 2000 -- Radiohead, Linkin Park, RHCP, Rhinna, Alica Keys come to mind.

    Even with all of the good new music out there, I stll find it funny when the top selling concert tours the last fews years consist of mostly Classic rock acts like McCartney, Rogers Waters, U2, Springsteen, the Who and Elton John/Billy Joel.

     

     

     

     

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    As discussed elsewhere on this forum, the argument is a bit simplistic and depends quite a bit on the folks here doing the discussing as well as the genres we're talking about.

    I believe the music business and environments have shifted dramatically from the 60s/70s, not just in terms of quality but also in the methods of creation and delivery.  The internet has exploded the market for more independent, experimental and genre-bending musicians, helped in part by the lead-in of the 90s, when the children of the boomers grew up and started forming their own bands in response to what their parents were listening to.

    Personally, it's a bit irksome, because I expend considerable effort and time to seek out newer artists and newer sounds wherever I can - not just to stay 'cool' with 'these darn kids today', but also to support promising young acts who will be the classic rockers 20-30 years from now.  I have little sympathy for people too lazy to be bothered and yet blithely assert all the best music came out 30-40 years ago.  It's just not true and never was.

    And while I prefer rock/pop/folk/blues/jazz music in general, I think it's still a bit narrow-minded not to acknowledge the hip-hop, dance, r&b and pure pop artists of today for the success they've cultivated among huge swaths of listeners all over the world.  Like it or not, they are also setting the musical trends for their generation.  Art will move on whether we choose to follow it or not.

    I recall a certain 70 year-old Beatle who realized this and performed recently with a couple of 40+ 'grunge' rockers with pretty cool results.

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Some good points made by roy and Matty.

    It may be more entertaining to have a simple and strong opinion, but I find it more interesting to attempt a more complex analysis of music as art and commerce. The more books I read and the more I discover, I find that great music is often created in less than purely artistic conditions. Music can't be separated from commerce if we are talking about popular music, particularly rock. It is the hit records that often creates the income that allows artists to explore other types of music without worrying about sales figures.

    I admit to not having much exposure or interest in popular music from the 90's to today. The bits and pieces I hear I have a mixed reaction to; some I like, some I don't, but none have appealed to me as much as certain types of music of the past. So I really can't comment on the overall quality of music that I don't have exposure to. I used to think I was a "hep cat" and that I would always keep up with current music. The aging process proved to have more impact than I anticipated.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Back in the late 90s , I was looking for something "cool" and "different" in music.

    I found it in the past.

    CD Reissues of LPs by Blues artists,surf instrumental, folk artists, garage bands and psychedelic artists were made available through catalogues. Groups I had missed out on , because they never got exposure.

    I think that there may be some interesting bands out there. Maybe my life has changed a bit since I was younger....surely technology, marketing and entertainment has changed ( not for the better...but that's just me).

    This morning I heard a song on WBRU ( actually , only part of it) called 'Feel Good Inc.' by a band called Gorillaz...I had heard of them, never listened to them. interesting piece,  very entertaining and different.

    Maybe this unique song is a "one hit " by this group. It's hard for me to say, since I know it was pretty good, but was it ever a hit?

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to ZILLAGOD's comment:

    Back in the late 90s , I was looking for something "cool" and "different" in music.

    I found it in the past.

    CD Reissues of LPs by Blues artists,surf instrumental, folk artists, garage bands and psychedelic artists were made available through catalogues. Groups I had missed out on , because they never got exposure.

    I think that there may be some interesting bands out there. Maybe my life has changed a bit since I was younger....surely technology, marketing and entertainment has changed ( not for the better...but that's just me).

    This morning I heard a song on WBRU ( actually , only part of it) called 'Feel Good Inc.' by a band called Gorillaz...I had heard of them, never listened to them. interesting piece,  very entertaining and different.

    Maybe this unique song is a "one hit " by this group. It's hard for me to say, since I know it was pretty good, but was it ever a hit?



    Interesting.

    "Feel Good, Inc." (featuring hip-hop legends De La Soul) came out in 2005, fwiw, off their second album, Demon Days.  They scored another hit previously with "Clint Eastwood" in 2001 or so.

    One of the band's leaders is Damon Albarn, who also founded the 90s british rock band, Blur.  Blur is a direct descendant of british pop/rockers like XTC, Love & Rockets, Stone Roses, as well as Beatles, The Move, and The Kinks.  "Song No. 2" is fairly common, and you probably have heard it.

    Sometimes, when we look for something different, we can find it in something familiar.

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Some good points made by roy and Matty.

    It may be more entertaining to have a simple and strong opinion, but I find it more interesting to attempt a more complex analysis of music as art and commerce. The more books I read and the more I discover, I find that great music is often created in less than purely artistic conditions. Music can't be separated from commerce if we are talking about popular music, particularly rock. It is the hit records that often creates the income that allows artists to explore other types of music without worrying about sales figures.

    I admit to not having much exposure or interest in popular music from the 90's to today. The bits and pieces I hear I have a mixed reaction to; some I like, some I don't, but none have appealed to me as much as certain types of music of the past. So I really can't comment on the overall quality of music that I don't have exposure to. I used to think I was a "hep cat" and that I would always keep up with current music. The aging process proved to have more impact than I anticipated.



    As much as I love some newer music, it's true that most can't really add up to the same devotion I have for music I grew up with.  So, in that sense, I can understand the assertion even while I don't agree with it.  

    Again, I've had a LOT more time to get to know that earlier classic stuff.  It's still with me, but now they inform my choices today while not always being my first choice.  All it does is make me slightly quicker to judge new stuff by my well-rendered tastes.

    The way I see it, it's never too late to learn what we don't already know.  

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Some good points made by roy and Matty.

    It may be more entertaining to have a simple and strong opinion, but I find it more interesting to attempt a more complex analysis of music as art and commerce. The more books I read and the more I discover, I find that great music is often created in less than purely artistic conditions. Music can't be separated from commerce if we are talking about popular music, particularly rock. It is the hit records that often creates the income that allows artists to explore other types of music without worrying about sales figures.

     

    Music is an industry, a business, and a profession.   People go to music schools of all types to learn to play, sing, arrange, compose, etc.  And they aspire to be in all / various aspects of the industry and profession, some with more stringent requirements to break in than others.  

    Yes, we mostly discuss music as consumers of the end-product, rather than as industry insiders, but the truth is that the issues in the music "business" are not that different from any other business as it pertains to revenue, adapting to change, creating change, shifting trends, and maintaining (or growing) a target market.   We're just not geared to discussing it on that level.   

    I've studied business history and there are some excellent books out there on the subject.   Successful companies aren't always the ones that have original ideas.  But they are the ones who know how to find new revenue streams and who don't stand still.    Look at Apple.   They went from their first corporate name, Apple Computers to  what is now, Apple, Inc.   Guess why?   Technology expertise went to iPods, to iPhones, to iTunes.  You get the idea.  They didn't invent cell phones, or MP3 players, did they?   Technology wizards.   Music companies have had to do the same, and part of the "aparatus" of the industry, are the performers, and the way music is marketed.   We may not always like what we see, but it helps when you put the music industry into a context, rather than just looking through the lens of your own personal experience.   

     



     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Just finished a book on Chess records and was reminded of how lucky we are that a big record company, MCA, purchased the Chess catalogue. I remember when I first got into the blues, I would scour the record stores looking for the great Chess blues records. This was a a time after the sale of the Chess catalogue to a couple of other companies. These companies did not have the recources or the know how to market the great product they had purchased. It was very frustrating and time consuming, but I did manage to scrape together a few great records. Luckily, MCA came along, and through their special products division, released a treasure trove of the great blues, rock, and soul recordings that the Chess label created. I'm glad that a record company with sufficient financial resources, as well as the smarts to recognize a small but good market, decided that Chess records was worth reissuing. I'm not sure that a smaller company could have taken on the financial risk involved.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    Just finished a book on Chess records and was reminded of how lucky we are that a big record company, MCA, purchased the Chess catalogue. I remember when I first got into the blues, I would scour the record stores looking for the great Chess blues records. This was a a time after the sale of the Chess catalogue to a couple of other companies. These companies did not have the recources or the know how to market the great product they had purchased. It was very frustrating and time consuming, but I did manage to scrape together a few great records. Luckily, MCA came along, and through their special products division, released a treasure trove of the great blues, rock, and soul recordings that the Chess label created. I'm glad that a record company with sufficient financial resources, as well as the smarts to recognize a small but good market, decided that Chess records was worth reissuing. I'm not sure that a smaller company could have taken on the financial risk involved.




    Good point. Hats off to MCA.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    Sadly, we have been in an era which I call "Disposable Pop". Last night, for as electric is Beyonce was, the music has zero staying power. 50 years from now, no one will have a clue. And anyone with a good backing track can record hits.

    Saturday night I was hanging out with some friends at a local pub that has one of those internet juke boxes. We were playing music that ranged from Dylan and Tom Waits to The Beatles and Stones to The Velvet Underground, NY Dolls and Ramones to Led Zep and Queen to Guns and Def Leppard. Not one song was less that 25 years old and up to 50 years old. And the kids in the bar knew every song, except for maybe Tom Waits - and a few came over and asked me about his songs and who he was.  When my grouping of songs were over, some of today's hip-hop and pop started playing. The guy at the jukebox who was playing it actually got booed by a few of his peers.

    Therein lies the difference. There is hope out there. It is just a matter of the kids hearing what real music is.

     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Is it just me

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    Some good points made by roy and Matty.

    It may be more entertaining to have a simple and strong opinion, but I find it more interesting to attempt a more complex analysis of music as art and commerce. The more books I read and the more I discover, I find that great music is often created in less than purely artistic conditions. Music can't be separated from commerce if we are talking about popular music, particularly rock. It is the hit records that often creates the income that allows artists to explore other types of music without worrying about sales figures.

    I admit to not having much exposure or interest in popular music from the 90's to today. The bits and pieces I hear I have a mixed reaction to; some I like, some I don't, but none have appealed to me as much as certain types of music of the past. So I really can't comment on the overall quality of music that I don't have exposure to. I used to think I was a "hep cat" and that I would always keep up with current music. The aging process proved to have more impact than I anticipated.

     



    As much as I love some newer music, it's true that most can't really add up to the same devotion I have for music I grew up with.  So, in that sense, I can understand the assertion even while I don't agree with it.  

     

    Again, I've had a LOT more time to get to know that earlier classic stuff.  It's still with me, but now they inform my choices today while not always being my first choice.  All it does is make me slightly quicker to judge new stuff by my well-rendered tastes.

    The way I see it, it's never too late to learn what we don't already know.  

     

     




     

     

    Funny. I'm almost the reverse in each direction: For the last couple of years, I mainly listen to a few new things (Slash/Keys/Bonamassa), or stuff recorded before I was born. The blues greats. The classic rockers regularly lauded here. Zepp.

    Although the first album I ever owned was a Stones greatest hits album, I spent most of my time listening to mid-late 80s hard rock bands, particularly G n' R, then AIC and the bands called "grunge" when they surfaced. And Tool, which is rather much its own thing.

    Of those, I definitely still play AIC with regularity, but not so much the others.

     

     

     



    Likewise, my first LP was J. Geils' "Blow Your Face Out", and while I had older brothers and sisters to steal 'classic' rock albums from, I was also fully immersed in the inescapable 80s MTV culture, which exposed me to everything from new wave to college rock to thrash.  I had my metal phase too, but that genre has passed me by with a few notable exceptions.

     

     

     

Share