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