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

[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?)