Festwca

I quote Saputello. Apart from that "impallidiscono," but it's fine as it is. Many of those sixties groups made history because rock (seen as an art form) didn't exist yet; it was in its embryonic stage. In the 80s, a more difficult step was taken: the abandonment of compromises, the breaking away from the music business.

:)))

*I meant to say "sixty-eighters," oops

I continue: look, I could almost write a thesis on 80s underground (and I know the Queen songs inside out), so if you say that was a post-’78 philosophy, you’re completely off the mark :) Ever heard of DIY (Do It Yourself), Our Band Could Be Your Life (famous motto of the Minutemen), "Finally The Punk Rockers Are Taking Acid" (a phrase that captures the spirit of certain independent music of those years well), "Eight Miles High" by Husker Du (an interpretation of the Byrds that transports the psychedelic flights of the 60s into the anguish of an inner psychological battle never seen before)? You know, I was struck by your sentence "the bands he mentioned did not leave a mark like the greats of the 70s": this means ignoring a good part of rock (and not only) from the 80s onwards!! How can you deny their importance, come on?

Indeed: evolution. The groups I've mentioned have certainly contributed to the evolution of rock. You say: "The concept of music 'do what you want, play how you want' does not belong to the 80s where instead the look came at the expense of the music itself": well, no, you are gravely mistaken, Walter! Too much look and many more synthesizers? But the bands I mentioned are mostly guitar-bass-drums trios, which were, by the way, very far from the "too much look" you speak of. The impression (though I could be wrong) is that you are speaking without knowledge of the facts (I say this without offense, okay?). Rather, I advise you to genuinely listen to something from those bands; you’ll realize that you’re quite mistaken. As for "expressing transgression and social discomfort," as you say, the "underground" bands of the eighties were perhaps braver than those of the seventies, definitely more humble and honest. The revolution that had been started in '67 (then shipwrecked with the advent of the seventies) was picked up ten times more intensely.

The look WAS at the heart of all rock. The 80s taught us the opposite; the diva attitude was abandoned, and the "rock legend" poses as well. The great innovation of bands like the Minutemen and Mission of Burma (which, I repeat, you may or may not like) was precisely that: express yourself for who you are, play what you want, it doesn't matter if you are a guitar god or a "rock icon," what matters is that you express yourself with simplicity. Have a good day.

Personality, stage presence. But are we talking about music?

Well, meanwhile, while "the queens behind the entertainment concealed deep and irrational fears, underneath the parody and irony lay poorly identified ghosts, THEY LAUGHED AT THE TRAGEDY OF LIFE," that's a rather debatable statement. And anyway, if you first say "music should teach nothing to anyone," then you contradict yourself. How? Music was only aesthetic, yet it concealed unidentified ghosts?

OK, I watched half of it (then I got bored because the video quality is really poor :)). Well, what can I say, meanwhile, Slint are earlier than Nirvana, so the issue of imitation of Cobain doesn't even arise (and anyway, it doesn't seem to me that the singer is imitating Cobain at all). Then: a fake-alternative band from a social center: what does that mean? That there are no big stage effects and superstar poses? All the better.

Anyway, in response to your previous comment: art is not an aesthetic matter, but one of meaning. Art is art as a source of knowledge, not because "it is beautiful."