(a.) Listening to the first Landscape album from 1979 now. Am completely astounded by how, even though it starts off with the completely futuristic Moogpop of "Japan", the rest of the album sounds very... '70s. Like what you would expect to hear on a "smooth contemporary jazz" radio station from around that time period, right next to the Herb Alpert and George Benson. It's a little on the disappointing side, really. I was hoping, because of "Japan" and the undeniably talented Richard James Burgess, to find an album full of excitement and thrills. Instead I'm listening to WKRP in Cincinnati. I did not sign up for that. And yes, it would be nice to listen to were I in the mood to laze about and tune the rest of the world out, but I'm in search of heady synthpop instrumental delights, something along the lines of Burgess's and Rusty Egan's magnum opus, "R.E.R.B.", recorded under the Shock imprint. (Does anyone know if the actual Shock performed a routine to this song?) Instead I've got what knitted sweatered, fuzzy bearded, long haired former hipster types-turned-imitation professorial types would have enjoyed listening to. NO. I am NOT about that. I would rather listen to something that lurex-clad, clean-shaven, makeup-donning, slicked-back glamour pusses would have danced their tails off to in an ultra-chic NuRo/futurist nightclub.
(b.) Doing a lazy thing by copying and pasting something I wrote on another forum that I feel is necessary to record over here because of its overall philosophical importance (this would be in response to a question about what New Wave is, BTW):
I tend to think that the New Wave label has retroactively been applied to anything that provided a real alternative to the mainstream rock and pop music that was infiltrating the American airwaves in the late '70s and early '80s. So I feel like [other username redacted out of privacy concerns]* is probably closest to the truth of the matter as it pertains to contemporary usage.
I don't know if this is something that has helped or harmed that which is "authentically" New Wave, though. I didn't really live through that era as far as actually experiencing it first-hand. I was a little baby when the '80s began and was in nursery school when that which is now labeled New Wave was at its most commercially successful. I do know, however, that the fact that the "New Wave" label has been applied as broadly as it has HAS helped ME out, insofar as being able to describe what my primary musical interests are goes. All I have to do is mention "I like New Wave" and that pretty much says it all.
I do know that I am addicted to what I consider to be "New Wave" music. I'm deeply grateful to those artists for creating music which is something other than what John Cougar Mellencamp, for example, was doing, and I think that the New Wave musical genre doesn't get enough credit for kick-starting the alternative rock revolution that would happen ten years down the line. I mean, if you're like me and consider power pop to be a New Wave subgenre, then Nirvana, with their overt power pop influences on display, were among the first of the nu-New Wavers.
Just my take on the matter.
*: This is what the person, whose board username I have chosen not to reveal out of the sake of his/her own privacy, wrote that I was generally agreeing with:
No offense taken! I've said it before in other threads, but all I heard growing up in Syracuse in the mid to late 70's was classic rock shit. ANYTHING different, punk, power pop, new wave all got lumped together by my group of friends. Early bands like Cheap Trick, Cars, Police, Pretenders, Blondie, Ramones, Patti Smith, etc. all fit together in what we considered "new wave." Although I know the difference between punk & new wave, I still use that umbrella term for a lot of differing groups, even though I know they don't always fit into what came after 1980.
It's just my shorthand way of saying "turn that Journey crap off!"
I would actually like to hear from the individuals who did actually and truly lived through the New Wave era (vs. just toddling through the latter parts of same) to get their own perspective of what it was really like back then and what the proper definition of New Wave is/should be. Is it really this catch-all term that I've been using as "New Wave", or is it something much less little-c catholic in its scope?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
New Wave, at least in the UK, was a marketing term coined by record companies to soften the name "punk" and sell records that were a little punky and influenced by the clean sweep that punk created. A lot of punk bands were also deemed New Wave, which kind of underlines that point.
New Wave was applied to anything that wasn't disco, rock or pop and the term continued to be used through the first half of the 80s, a full ten years after punk began. The mind boggles at that - how can something be "new" ten years after the fact?
I'd say it could only legitimately be applied up to about 1980 at the latest. By then, music was developing and moving on fast - certainly the 80s bands were heavily influenced by punk and New Wave, but more by the ethos of experimentation and doing your own thing than the actual sound.
So, what was New Wave? I'd say it applied to two distinct groups. Firstly, groups around in 1975-77 who were not punk but were doing stuff other than rock or disco and genuinely trying to create something new alongside punk - bands that spring to mind are Television, Talking Heads, Eddie and the Hot Rods, The Jam, Nick Lowe and Elvis Costello... Secondly, the first post-punk wave of groups (many of whose members had previously been in punk bands) who had lived through punk and were taking the ethos to a new level and experimenting with the next sounds - bands like Magazine, Wire, The Police, The Pretenders, etc.
I've seen New Wave applied to bands like Martha and the Muffins, which is really a joke...
I certainly wouldn't call Cheap Trick New Wave - to me they were just a pub-rock band hitching a ride for convenience with the help of record company marketing departments.
Patti Smith and the Ramones - New Wave? I'd say punk. Cars? Definitely neither punk nor New Wave.
I'd call the first 2 maybe 3 Cars albulms new wave, but with the onset of their MTV fame, they became a shambling corporate zombie of their former self.
I was going to mention in germany it was called Neue Deutche Welle or NDW. unfortunately the NDW tag has recently been usurped by rappers. Also Vorsicht Muzik was another term used. The original underground bands were followed by what has been refered to as the 'adapted' NDW bands. i'd compare this to the Punk/New Wave difference in regards to the level of polish, but not the construction of the music.
I spent most of the 80s in texas, where in 1981 I was fortunate to see Devo, The Cars third tour and The Ramones (in a tiny club)in 82. In 1988 was lucky enough to spend the last spring and summer in West Germany before the wall came down. While I was there my crowd referred to what they were into as Wave and No Future. They were listening to mostly 4AD stuff.
I think MTV was a mixed blessing. It got alot of stuff out there, but it also put so much more emphasis on looks. I think it really killed the genre in some ways by over saturation.
I want to point out that one of the differences I see between Punk and New Wave is that I think New Wave has one foot in the Prog Rock scene and the other in punk. And a fascination with the new technologies becoming available.
ok nuff sed, for now.
Post a Comment