4 reactions
Is 90's Rock History being rewritten?
Does anybody else who grew up in the 90's notice this really eerie trend of modern music historians getting Rock history wrong?
It's possibly being made worse by badly written AI articles but even without that there's been a weird tendency to lionize Oasis as being something more akin to a breakthrough indie band like "The Smiths" rather than the Status Quo-like crowd pleasers they always were (and all power to them for being that, but they're def "X", not "Y".). Foo Fighters are starting to be
regarded as some kind of edgy Legacy Act (like Nirvana actually were) when for most of their career they have been really a pro-corporate Soft Metal band, like Limp Biscuit or Sum'92
It's like there's a compression of history happening here- and fringe bands that were truly daring are not just being forgotten (inevitable) but these highly populist acts (no shame in that per se, *but-?) are being re-cast as firebrands of some kind of "indie revolution".
They're not. They're big fat success stories who shamelessly played to the gallery!
Nothing WRONG with that.
But- I mean like- (sigh).
Anyone else feeling this? No?
Money Talks and Bullshit Walks etc.
But- it's bad enough that that idiosyncratic era of the music industry is over. But for it to be rewritten with big marker pen by these fat cats is pretty distressing
I'm not saying they're no good. But I always saw Oasus as a bit ridiculous
I mean- compare them to The Clash, The Specials, the Jam, Spacemen 3- and you can see how ridiculous they look
Similarly- compare Foo Fighters with Even a massive band like the original line up of Alice In Chains - let alone FUGAZI or Black Flag- and they look like Bon Jovi
This used to be set in stone. It used to be a "north star"
Now its Ed Norton's IKEA filled bachelor pad in "Fight Club"
#music #rock
Does anybody else who grew up in the 90's notice this really eerie trend of modern music historians getting Rock history wrong?
It's possibly being made worse by badly written AI articles but even without that there's been a weird tendency to lionize Oasis as being something more akin to a breakthrough indie band like "The Smiths" rather than the Status Quo-like crowd pleasers they always were (and all power to them for being that, but they're def "X", not "Y".). Foo Fighters are starting to be
regarded as some kind of edgy Legacy Act (like Nirvana actually were) when for most of their career they have been really a pro-corporate Soft Metal band, like Limp Biscuit or Sum'92
It's like there's a compression of history happening here- and fringe bands that were truly daring are not just being forgotten (inevitable) but these highly populist acts (no shame in that per se, *but-?) are being re-cast as firebrands of some kind of "indie revolution".
They're not. They're big fat success stories who shamelessly played to the gallery!
Nothing WRONG with that.
But- I mean like- (sigh).
Anyone else feeling this? No?
Money Talks and Bullshit Walks etc.
But- it's bad enough that that idiosyncratic era of the music industry is over. But for it to be rewritten with big marker pen by these fat cats is pretty distressing
I'm not saying they're no good. But I always saw Oasus as a bit ridiculous
I mean- compare them to The Clash, The Specials, the Jam, Spacemen 3- and you can see how ridiculous they look
Similarly- compare Foo Fighters with Even a massive band like the original line up of Alice In Chains - let alone FUGAZI or Black Flag- and they look like Bon Jovi
This used to be set in stone. It used to be a "north star"
Now its Ed Norton's IKEA filled bachelor pad in "Fight Club"
#music #rock
2
1
1
| 9,000 mlx | |
| 6 | |
| 4 |