the lex just claimed this: is he korrekt?
my response = it is NOT COMMON CERTAINLY but it has happened, like a kind of harmonic convergence within recorded music after -- with things after never the same as before
for example:
i. stones
ii. sabbaf
iii. slade/pistols (=essentially the same thing anyway)
iv. pulp fiction inspired resurgence of SURF sound
obv plenty of bands have been one then the other but not simultaneously, and some have even switched back again
*note use of ACTUAL here must not be employed in any kind of essentialist slipperiness, bcz that kind of behaviour is INDIE
my response = it is NOT COMMON CERTAINLY but it has happened, like a kind of harmonic convergence within recorded music after -- with things after never the same as before
for example:
i. stones
ii. sabbaf
iii. slade/pistols (=essentially the same thing anyway)
iv. pulp fiction inspired resurgence of SURF sound
obv plenty of bands have been one then the other but not simultaneously, and some have even switched back again
*note use of ACTUAL here must not be employed in any kind of essentialist slipperiness, bcz that kind of behaviour is INDIE
"one then the other but not simultaneously"
Date: 2006-05-25 12:38 pm (UTC)Re: "one then the other but not simultaneously"
Date: 2006-05-25 03:25 pm (UTC)Re: "one then the other but not simultaneously"
Date: 2006-05-25 03:32 pm (UTC)(And then in the later post today he explains when the Stones did this, and I agree with his choice, I think.)
(Having since put on some Sabbath it's THEM I'm now not sure about)
Re: "one then the other but not simultaneously"
Date: 2006-05-25 03:49 pm (UTC)Attempt At NĂ¼-Spelling = Attempt To Be Pop And Rock Simultaneously Spice
Re: "one then the other but not simultaneously"
Date: 2006-05-25 03:51 pm (UTC)