Nominations for an 80s Albums That Rock Poll(inc indie/Alt,punk,metal,heavy/glam etc) CLOSES SUNDAY NIGHT 11:59 p.m. UK

'Are the Pixies harsher than R.E.M. because they were less pop?' is prima facie a stupid question

oh come on flowers of romance is dionysian as fuck

(Yet, weirdly, I kind of like including pop metal in an "80s music that rocks" poll! It does seem to complicate the definitions though, from an objective pov.)

xposts

i don't think it complicates definitions at all unless you labour under the misapprehension that there is some concrete and obtainable taxonomy of all god's musics

Who wants pop metal out?
Who wants pop metal kept in?

Taste shouldn't be part of your decision.

leave it in now

Y'all are some of the most pedantic motherfuckers I've ever encountered in my life.

I'm not even participating in this anymore. Just observing from outside like looking at an ant farm.

Hm, well, sorry if I was being pedantic. I didn't make the rules and was kind of curious about people's explanations for and arguments about them.

this coming from the dude who was going on about bruce springsteen upthread xp

Just observing from outside like looking at an ant farm.

― Johnny Fever, Monday, August 20, 2012 6:02 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

that would be.....an ALIEN ant farm

(johnny are you ok, are you ok johnny?)

it's not really a farm though - more like a handful of ants people get to react by poking at them with a stick.

'Are the Pixies harsher than R.E.M. because they were less pop?' is prima facie a stupid question

― A.R.R.Y. Kane (nakhchivan), Monday, August 20, 2012 9:54 AM (8 minutes ago)

I wasn't asking the question. I was trying to frame things that were included/excluded based on your definition of the parameters. "Harshness" was the only quality that seemed like it might have some conceivable application in the case of Pixies/R.E.M. (rational and Dionysian did not seem to).

If indeed "harshness" is the determining factor, then it seemed to me that this it is, precisely, the absence of pop that makes it so. You claim the Pixies were more "corrosive" - I don't know if I agree.

I may have said something about Springsteen not being eligible, but I never really lobbied on his behalf. My main beef with this whole endeavor is that the nominating process should be a time of inclusion (we all pretty much know what rock sounds like when we hear it, right?). Voting will be the time when things get excluded. If people disagree with your choices, that will all come out in the voting and no one has to chastise anyone else needlessly. AG's polls create some of the most dysfunction lines of thinking I've ever seen on ILM.

i don't really give a fuck what is or isn't included in the sense of special pleading for this or that music in some poll on the internet

it can be interesting to argue these definitions though, and i don't think tim or sund4r are being /pedantic/ in that sense at all

I wasn't asking the question. I was trying to frame things that were included/excluded based on your definition of the parameters. "Harshness" was the only quality that seemed like it might have some conceivable application in the case of Pixies/R.E.M. (rational and Dionysian did not seem to).

If indeed "harshness" is the determining factor, then it seemed to me that this it is, precisely, the absence of pop that makes it so. You claim the Pixies were more "corrosive" - I don't know if I agree.

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 6:09 PM (5 minutes ago)

then harshness is the apt descriptor

pixies are clearly at the user friendly end of my spectrum there, so it is to be expected that they don't exemplify it as much as say, swans do

it can be interesting maddening to argue these definitions though

yeah but with respect i don't think you are that interested in music ~theoretically~

very few people are!

And I honestly think the Rickenbacker thing is valid. I saw R.E.M. many times in the '80s - once in '85 on a bill with True West. Given that we were talking about the Dream Syndicate earlier, maybe True West could stand in for them here. Who was more rocking that night - R.E.M. or True West?

I likewise saw a bill of the Three O'Clock and Thin White Rope in '87 and the same question applies.

REM begin that optimistic and communitarian tendency in indie music, their ideal form is a sort of dissenting church of indeterminately alienated, dull unhappy people who can find shared meaning in chiming guitars and plaintive 'cryptic' lyrics that speak to the them alone and them altogether

both them and the pixies draw quite heavily mission of burma, probably

You claim the Pixies were more "corrosive" - I don't know if I agree.

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 10:09 AM (6 minutes ago)

surfer rosa is way more corrosive than anything REM ever put out. that does seem to be part of what's at work in defining the umbrella here: transgression, noise, against-ness. all the destructive, chaotic, foam-flecked impulses nakh invoked in mentioning the "dionysian". that plus close relation to a few related genres: heavy metal, hard rock, punk/hc, and a "rock & roll" tradition that runs from chuck berry up through the white stripes. indie gets a place at the table, but only so long as it shares more in common with those genres & impulses than with pop. there's also an unstated macho element to this vague definition.

yeah

'transgression' is such an overused idiot word in 2012, almost as bad as 'radical', but in the distant 1980s most of this music was, or seemingly wished to be transgressive

I wasn't asking the question. I was trying to frame things that were included/excluded based on your definition of the parameters. "Harshness" was the only quality that seemed like it might have some conceivable application in the case of Pixies/R.E.M. (rational and Dionysian did not seem to).

If indeed "harshness" is the determining factor, then it seemed to me that this it is, precisely, the absence of pop that makes it so. You claim the Pixies were more "corrosive" - I don't know if I agree.

"harshness" is more an aesthetic judgement than a quality per se. I'd settle for "intense" even though we're splitting hairs here. but you also have to examine the reasons why a band might seem more intense. bands that rock harder, that play their instruments more aggressively, vigorously, loudly and dynamically than other bands are going to seem more intense (or, to a pop fan, possibly harsher). intensity doesn't imply an absence of pop so much as it implies a commitment to rock at the very least equal to the commitment to pop. very simply, the Pixies rock harder than R.E.M. (though not by much, admittedly), and to a dedicated pop fan may seem harsher as a result. the Pixies are an interesting example, though, because I would say that they are as dedicated to pop as they are to rock, which is not the case for many of the bands on this list. imagining rock and pop occupying opposing corners on a sliding scale is helpful, and I think the Pixies are just a tad over the rock line, close to the center, while R.E.M. are perhaps an equal distance away from the center on the pop side of the scale. this abstraction is obviously a bit simplistic and YMMV.

and contenderizer re ar kane upthread, 69 is indeed probably a bit too somnolent and detached for inclusion here, but their early eps certainly qualify

'lollita' and 'sadomasochism is a must' are trying at being ~transgressive~, trying too hard perhaps

Naw, R.E.M. had a tougher rhythm section.

xp

which REM tracks should we be listening to here/

Naw, R.E.M. had a tougher rhythm section.

I'm not a fan of either band, tbh, but I don't think is true. R.E.M. are definitely lighter on guitars, and as a band, their dynamics are generally far more subdued. as I said, I think the Pixies rock harder than R.E.M., but not by a lot. if you genuinely think that R.E.M.'s rhythm section rocks harder, I don't have a major trump card to disprove this notion ("Gigantic", perhaps).

"Radio Free Europe," "Pretty Persuasion," "Second Guessing," "Little America," "Feeling Gravitys Pull," "Auctioneer," "Begin the Begin," "These Days," "Just a Touch," "Windout," "Finest Worksong," "Fireplace," etc.

There's a heaviness to the rhythm section (i.e., bass and drums and sometimes guitar too!) and a sort of feeling of playing in the pocket that comes from hard rock.

that plus close relation to a few related genres: heavy metal, hard rock, punk/hc, and a "rock & roll" tradition that runs from chuck berry up through the white stripes.

Again, Chuck Berry but not Buddy Holly, etc.

well yeah

"harshness" is more an aesthetic judgement than a quality per se.

where the early pixies stuff is concerned, "harshness" = suddenly shrieking really fucking loudly in the midst of what might otherwise pass for a pleasant indie pop song. this tactic aligns them with the weird, noisy, transgressive-aggressive, antipop sensibility that this poll seems organized around.

Chuck Berry but not Buddy Holly, etc.

i say yes cuz the implied line runs from chuck berry and jerry lee lewis to the ramones and motorhead

There are no subjects more transgressive than the apocalypse ("It's the End of the World as We Know It," "Fireplace").

haw!

right i am relistening to radio free europe, which is a nice song for sure

the rhythm section is insistent enough but absolutely nothing else about, everything is perfectly controlled and pellucid and good-spirited and clean-lined

"Radio Free Europe," "Pretty Persuasion," "Second Guessing," "Little America," "Feeling Gravitys Pull," "Auctioneer," "Begin the Begin," "These Days," "Just a Touch," "Windout," "Finest Worksong," "Fireplace," etc.

There's a heaviness to the rhythm section (i.e., bass and drums and sometimes guitar too!) and a sort of feeling of playing in the pocket that comes from hard rock.

I would characterize these tracks as light rock. they're spirited but not particularly loud or aggressive, and as such don't really have a place in a poll covering the most rocking tracks. the tempos and dynamics are rock-ish, but the guitars and vocals are pure pop. are you honestly suggesting that these tracks are among the most rocking tracks of the 80s? or simply that they deserve to be categorized as rock?

I'm saying that they have a heavier rhythm section than other things included in the poll.

where the early pixies stuff is concerned, "harshness" = suddenly shrieking really fucking loudly in the midst of what might otherwise pass for a pleasant indie pop song. this tactic aligns them with the weird, noisy, transgressive-aggressive, antipop sensibility that this poll seems organized around.

idk, "harshness" is too closely associated with distaste, which is why I prefer "intensity". those really fucking loud shrieks may sound harsh to Tim, but I usually find these episodes of noise to be invigorating. I think that we're probably on the same page w/r/t where the Pixies stand in relation to the rest of the bands in this poll.

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

I'm saying that they have a heavier rhythm section than other things included in the poll.

well, this may be true. and perhaps The Dream Syndicate should also be excluded, or REM should be included. the discussion is a bit pointless, though, because in a poll where people are voting for the most rocking tracks, no one IMO is realistically going to be voting for either. The REM/Dream Syndicate line is thin and arbitrary, admittedly, but if AG is going to draw a line, then any bands abutting this line are fodder for this discussion no matter where it's drawn.

I don't think we're being asked to vote for the most rocking tracks. I think we're being asked to vote for our favorite tracks where our fondness for them has something to do with how much they rock.

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

this is a major factor, but not certainly not the only one. and really, R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak. it's not as though R.E.M. have a commanding, legendary rhythm section and are being denied simply because their guitars and vocals are tepid. on occasion, R.E.M. can rock and put down a groove, but this is not the band's raison d'etre. R.E.M. make nice, hummable pop tunes that are occasionally animated enough to be called "rock", but this puts them, at best, at the margin of this poll.

hellhouse otm

lol haven't looked on this thread in a while and tim is still flogging his REM hobbyhorse

Well, I was making a different point this time...

And that heavier rhythm sections and groove used to be a determining factor in establishing how much things rocked, c.f. Brownsville Station, Grand Funk, etc.

― timellison, Monday, August 20, 2012 7:36 PM (40 minutes ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUZ5VgcMY88

I don't think we're being asked to vote for the most rocking tracks. I think we're being asked to vote for our favorite tracks where our fondness for them has something to do with how much they rock.

I think in this particular case, we're being asked to find tracks where our fondness for them has everything to do with how much they rock. this is merely my understanding. I'm not barring R.E.M., and I'm not running the poll, so ultimately I can't say. but, again, I think that we're being asked for tracks and albums that we love precisely because we think they rock hard. I also think that part of the problem, at least for the older voters, is that there was a moment in the early 80s when the twee/neurotic stylings of REM and Beat Happening and the Feelies ran so counter to the mainstream notions of rock generally and masculinity specifically, that they scanned as "punk", and were imagined, somewhat ironically, as being more aggressive than they were. there may be a tension in this poll in terms of using the criteria of the 80s vs. using today's criteria to evaluate these bands (and IMO, the perception of these bands, outside of that particular historical context, has changed markedly, and they are no longer really seen as aggro).

R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak.

I look at the list and I see a lot of bands that were a lot less grounded in '70s rock than R.E.M. And I don't know what they might have been more grounded in. And when I see the Fall and lots of others, I think, "Gimme a break."

The Feelies "rocked" when they wanted to.

R.E.M.'s rhythm section, compared to those found in most of the other bands on this list, is fairly weak.

I look at the list and I see a lot of bands that were a lot less grounded in '70s rock than R.E.M. And I don't know what they might have been more grounded in. And when I see the Fall and lots of others, I think, "Gimme a break."

the Fall? this is a huge plate of challops. they're well known for having an aggressive, driving rhythm section that lunges and lurches and swings. and regardless of R.E.M.'s 70s inspirations, the music they actually produced for the most part doesn't really rock. perhaps in a live setting, when the music is naturally louder and heavier, and the dynamics more intense, they actually rock. but the records they put out are fairly tame. I doubt anyone here has anything to say that will convince you, though.

The Feelies "rocked" when they wanted to.

true. but I'm generalizing about bands perceived as twee. I'm not really looking to hash it out over the Feelies.