[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com posting in [community profile] poptimists
When you start exploring a new genre do you make any assumptions about whether the best-known acts/records/choons in that genre are likely to be the best or not? Do you think, for instance, that there must be a load of obscure better records lurking behind the famous ones that the Real Heads know about?

Of course I think for most people the answer is "depends" - but what does it depend on? For instance, here are two statements someone might make:

"James Brown isn't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure funk acts who are way better than him."

"Incantation aren't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure pan pipe moods acts who are way better than them."

I think statement #1 would raise eyebrows and statement #2 would be more generally accepted as likely to be true.

(I started on this train of thought because I realised when answering a thread on [livejournal.com profile] sukrat that for all I knew Merzbow might be a huge noise sell out and despised by all the real noise fans.)

Date: 2008-05-15 12:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] alexmacpherson.livejournal.com
Outkast's big hook = "not like other hip-hop".

Date: 2008-05-15 12:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] braisedbywolves.livejournal.com
That's a good hook! Okay, point taken.

December 2014

S M T W T F S
 123456
78 910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 30th, 2026 03:05 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios