OFF: now 90s v. 80s

[Tim Gadd]

At 03:37 AM 3/8/00 -0500, Alex S. Garcia wrote:


> I'll take new wave over house or techno, anytime.

Me too, but I think 'New Wave' was a late 70's phenomenon; sort of the first
metamorphosis of punk - which just managed to limp on a bit into the 80's
because no-one could think of anything else to call it. I mean I remember
people calling bands 'new wave' in 1983, 7 years after the term was coined
in relation to punk (how, for instance, Orchestral Manouveres in the Dark
could be thought to have anything in common with The Jam is totally beyond
me, but they were both called 'new wave' at one point or another)

> Cyndi
>Lauper over Britney Spears (yuck !).

Well yeah, and I'd probably take botulism over anthrax, but it doesn't mean
I'd contract either of them for fun ;)

>Duran Duran over Backstreet Boys

I cringe to think what Backstreet Boys must be like (sorry, I could never
see whatever it was that other people managed to see in DD)

Y'know, I think the time that I realised I was really totally lost in
regards to popular 80's music, was the year that NME voted Simple Minds best
band of the year, and Human League worst band of the year, and I couldn't
really tell the difference between them :)

The _really_ bizarre thing is that nowadays it's _me_ that listens to new
music, and all these 18 year-olds I know are listening to King Crimson and
Yes. Postmodernism takes some getting used to, especially for someone who
basically grew up with punk, at a time when everyone thought that anything
recorded more than three weeks ago was prehistoric rubbish. Anyone who was a
Hawkwind fan at the time will know what I mean. I still can't quite get used
to them having good press and being 'ok to like' in the 90's :) But nowadays
anything is OK to like. The Bay City Rollers are ok to like. Stalin, Pol
Pot,  Bobby Golsdboro - you name it!

(being new to the list, I hope this wasn't too far off-topic)
--
Tim Gadd
Hobart, Tasmania