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]

if a demographic is served by someone who is MUCH BIGGER than what s/he follows, s/he can hide it altogether -- ie elvis effaced his own r&b roots; the beatles effaced the various strands of pop they drew together etc

another of the effects of the "punk --> niche marketing" evolution in the late 70s was to dig back before the dawn of "rock" (1965?), to re-evaluate and re-establish forgotten or under-regarded precursor modes (exccept this may be less an "effect" of punk than a "cause" actually)

weird example of how it was in the later 60s = shanana at woodstock