BobbyMike
Member

Registered: Dec 1999
Location: "Children are a gift from God, they are a reward"
Posts: 1049 |
No. I'm saying that whether someone prefers a better singer over a better guitar player _is_ a matter of taste, but that there are some more objective criteria that can be used to evaluate which is better within certain criteria. IOW, Pat Benatar is undoubtedly a better singer, but not everyone considers singing to be the mark of a better 'artist'.
Exactly - it's a matter of taste as to what one considers "more talented" . In your opinion, and in others, PB is a "better" singer. Someone with different criteria can, and will, have a different opinion. That is the way of the world.
No, I never said she was a faux punker. I said she was mainstream (although that makes one faux to 'purists', e.g. Green Day isn't considered punk because they've sold more than 5 albums). She was on MTV as much as anyone back in the day.
No you said that she was a neo-punker (?) and implied she was marketed on attitude, not her looks.
My comment about you being too mainstream was a joke. Mainstream people know who Miles Davis is and might even have an album of his, but they never listen to it.
How convenient that she didn't make punk music then.
No, she just started her own label and produced it. (although she played on many punk albums as a guest artist)
And that's still irrelevant to the quality of the music that gets the awards. A Grammy doesn't make a great work crap, nor does it make crap work great.
I agree, that is the point I was trying to make.
Why not? He won a Grammy. If winning a Grammy means anything about the talent of a recipient (which it doesn't), then it applies to him as well.
He was awarded Grammys based on work he had done in the past. It's pretty safe to award somebody an award 20 years later and say their work was seminal. My question is- why wasn't he awarded one for an album when it was released?
Except that no one offered Grammies equating to talent (except you). I think you're getting too caught up in punk's mystique and politics and not its reality. Punk was/is a religion.
No, I was trying to separate the two. The Grammys don't represent talent or lack there of - merely a group of peoples opinions of a given album at a given time.
Punk had politics, but no mystique. It's no different than speed metal or hip hop. It started as something small amongst a small group of misfits -in punks case, English prole kids in the '70s with no futures (read jobs)-, got big enough to be noticed by "cool" people and then became a marketing niche. It's not a religion as much as it's a choice people make to be "different". I listened to some bands that could be considered punk, and even own a pair of Doc Martens (from a store in London!), but I was in London in the '70s and I saw semnial punks there and feel no kinship with them. I was born and raised in the south and feel more kinship with Elvis or Steve Earle.
Punk these days seems to represent bored American middle class suburban kids trying to be different than the dopers, gangers, soshes (socialites), Phish-heads, and other "different" groups.
I'll bet that Joan Jett has more songs sold to movie soundtracks, though.
I'll bet you're right too. I know she was on the soundtrack to Tank Girl (sadly a failed movie also)
__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
|