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

Perhaps I have too high a bar for what meets the definition, but...

[epicharmus.livejournal.com]

To my mind, "not a household name" is not at all the same thing as "obscure." X is obscure is when I have to WAY GO OUT OF MY WAY to find out something about X. If I can buy X on amazon.com, it's not obscure. If Wikipedia has an entry about X, it's not obscure. If Time Magazine had a cover story about them once, uh-uh. If I have to swim through the microfiches at the New York Public Library, if I have to flip discs in dusty bins, if I have to go to another country to interview people just so I can find out out something in-depth and concrete about X -- yes, obscure.