utterly forgotten but NOT OBSCURE

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

by terming david byrne "obscure", alexmacpherson touches the exact, interesting nerve i think -- maybe even more than with his legendary "why SHOULD i have heard of john wayne?" argument

which is that in every generation (wait, that's how BUFFY starts!! -- er er focus) in every generation there are figures very well-known to all who have just VANISHED from mainstream radar by the next cycle

it's not that they're still popular but currently unfashionable; it's more that "what they meant" is no longer part of the pop discussion -- is that right?

so why has byrne vanished this way? or is it just not making "the right kinds of records" any more?

(disclaimer: i LOVED LOVE LOVED early TH and have i think every record they made --- BUT i went off them INCREDIBLY fast, round abt "true stories", and it took me years to rediscover any fondness)

Comments

[jeff-worrell.livejournal.com]

but this is about the "disunification of rock discourse" isn't it?

It was on the other threads, yes. You seemed to me to be seeking to widen it to popular culture in general in your opening post of this thread. If not, my mistake.

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

yes it's not very clear bcz i'm not sure that *i'm* very clear about it -- i think that i feel that one of punk's negative triumphs was to pull what i'm calling "rock culture" back from the goal of full participation in -- and even domination of -- full-on mainstream pop culture

ie in order to get its best complexity in it turned towards niche-marketing itself (which gave it better autonomy but less outreach) (and indie-fication plus what koganbot calls pbs-ification)

but byrne was (possibly) at least a figure on the horizon, representing the COMING THING, while "rock discourse" still toyed with this bigger ambition

(hence time cover etc)

so i can only "take it wider" to acknowledge that history refuses to LET it go wider (but this also explains yrs and my difficulty finding similar figures in our past?)