"It's impossible to be Actual* Pop and Actual Rock simultaneously!"

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

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

Comments

Re: Jesus Chrixt people, EVANESCENCE!

[koganbot]

Also, DeRogatis countered Sanneh by saying that potentially anything can be rock or that rock can come from anywhere or something, which means either that DeRo is not a "rockist" (because there is no rockism) or that rockism is not what antirockists think it is (because there is no rockism). DeRo has argued that James Joyce is rock, which might not endear him to the average to the pubster, you know.

Re: Jesus Chrixt people, EVANESCENCE!

[koganbot]

See, if by Actual Rock you mean "actual rock as a rockist would define it" and then you invent the rockist of your dreams you're stuck with the problem that you've defined "as a rockist would define it" to be stuff that isn't very good rock