Sinister: epigones of the epic

[P F]

march hares, march hares,

Like that promo impressario a-go-go Stevie T, I have been struck by the 
return of the Reynolds girls to the list. I would like to make further 
contributions - to charity, Shields, and of course this discussion.

Arantxa said, roughly:
SR accurately predicted that being demure and humble would become 
underground; ie that hedonism was no longer radical in a spendspendspend 
world.

I think she - and thus he - are about right. But this could be an excuse for 
wallowing in static, pallid, woolly idleness; in which case I'm even more in 
favour of it.

She then went off on one about grunge. Another character also said that if 
you didn't like Nirvana in 92, you weren't fully together, or something 
similar. I'm afraid I can't quite agree with that. I like (some) Nirvana, 
too, and agree that some people have been keen to write them out of history; 
but in 1991, when the folks above me were playing 'Teen Spirit' every five 
minutes, I detested them.

(I detested Nirvana too.)

It took me years to get what was good (so it seemed to me) out of the band: 
a) their ability to produce good old-fashioned catchy pop melodies, and b) 
the unusual character of many of those melodies, and chord sequences (so not 
so old-fashioned after all). I'd still stick up for 'About A Girl', 
'Lithium', 'Drain You', etc - but not for the self-indulgent studio 
noisemaking that feels like a hangover from the worse kinds of 
'adolescence'.

So: yes, it's good to appreciate Nirvana, if appreciating Nirvana is your 
thing; but you didn't have to do it in 1992. Some folk weren't even born in 
1992. What future for them?

Arantxa also said that Britpop was the illegitimate child of indie pop - 
which I think is rather well put. But 'not that close in musical sources and 
forms'? Surely a resounding yes and no. No: that Kinks / Small Faces / 
glamracket thing doesn't strike me as having been a big influence on 80s 
indie pop, little enough that I know of it. Then again, you could draw lines 
from C86 to the Roses (so Stevie T tells me) to Blur ('we've killed baggy!' 
- and everything else) or Oasis (so Liam G tells us), or from Marr to 
Gallagher N (so he tells us, with the guitars to prove it), or from JAMC-MBV 
to...

Perhaps most won't find this plausible. I'm just saying that as history 
rolls on, it leaves traces, and one thing has a way of bleeding into 
another.

Stevie T said that 'Against Health and Efficiency' was 
cultural-studies-sociological rather than 'formalist' or, shall we say, 
ecstatic. He's right. He said that SR should reread the piece himself. I 
think he's right. ST added that 'the unclassifiable beauty of melody is just 
as radical as the most jouissant code-jamming'. I don't know what 
'code-jamming' might be, but think he's right again.

Nick D said that he'd preferred NME to MM. Orthodoxies have grown up (maybe 
always had) over the differences between the two magazines - orthodoxies 
which may be too easy and seductive. I take it that Nick D is, for one 
thing. steering us away from them. Goth? Maybe. Sounds was a bit more 
gothic, wasn't it?

On the other hand, this bit about not wanting to look kids in the eye and 
say 'the trouble with music today is that it's not sufficiently epic in 
sound and scope'. Hm - well, we'll have to have kids first, there's a 
problem, possibly even a rub. But was SR into the epic anyway? I was 
listening to Isn't Anything today and it's... oh, OK, it's epic. Still, if 
that's what epic stuff sounds like, it might not be a bad thing to be epic. 
(Surely Loveless is epic, and is one of the most beautiful sounds I can 
think of.) And presumably you can like epic things (whatever they are) and 
other things too. SR liked Viva Hate too - a great record (I apologize for 
the number of *opinions* in this mail - nobody needs to know whether I think 
it's a great record or not - it's just shorthand, I suppose) - but not epic, 
save perhaps on 'Late Night Maudlin Street'.

Nick D was probably right on the button, really. I wouldn't want to seem to 
be disagreeing with him. As for SR's love of the epic: he it was who wrote 
(roughly:) 'U2 are massive but minimalist, all texture, no rock frills or 
solos...'

Epic, then, yes, I will, Yes.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
   +---+  Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list  +---+
   To send to the list mail sinister at missprint.org. To unsubscribe
   send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to
   majordomo at missprint.org.  WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister
 +-+  "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+
 +-+  "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+
 +-+       "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper        +-+
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+