Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxr.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!mhuxr!mfs
From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Settling the JSB/KB controversy once and for all
Message-ID: <391@mhuxr.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 22:31:47 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxr.391
Posted: Mon Aug 12 22:31:47 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 22:27:41 EDT
References: <1446@pyuxd.UUCP> <387@mhuxr.UUCP> <1455@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 32

> > ME
> > You may have missed
> > what I said about the Go-Gos, but dressing funny was not part of it.
> > Not being able to create and perform music of consequence was but looks
> > and clothes were not.
> 
> No more or less "consequence" than your idol, Mr. Ellington.  Oh come on,
> define "consequence". 

I define work of artistic consequence as having some degree of influence over
work created later, by others, and as being able to withstand passing
fashions and evoke appreciative emotions over long periods of time ("forever")
I'd say Ellington meets those criteria and the Go-Go's don't.

> The Go-Go's had enough good music in their
> repertoire to label your judgment of them as sour grapes.

If that is so, where are they now, and why did they suddenly disappear
when the initial wave of hype washed over?

> Your remark
> about the Go-Go's was throwaway material and hardly the general subject
> of the article, though it seemed to tie in well with the notion of
> anybody who judges music based on non-musical characteristics. 

Offhand comment, but perfectly in keeping with the original article
on Madonna, in net.women, which was about the lack of substance
of same; quite similar in my mind to the Go-Go's situation.

> 					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr

Marcel Simon