|
Post by kds on Apr 7, 2020 13:00:23 GMT
Being Beach Boys fans, we're all familiar with false narratives in music, so I figured I'd start a thread on them for other artists.
I decided to start with two from another great California band - Van Halen. These are things you often hear / read about Van Halen from fans, journalists, etc etc. Here.....we......go.
1. "Van Halen's 1978 debut saved rock and roll from the clutches of disco." There's no disputing that Van Halen's debut album was a game changer in terms of guitar based rock. But, "saved rock?" No, rock was doing just fine. Arena rock and AOR in particular were thriving at the time, in the face of disco. To be fair, I've heard this particular false narrative a lot less over the years, perhaps due to the AOR / arena rock movement garnering more respect over the years.
But, the #2 false narrative about Van Halen is an all timer, and to me, it's right up there with "Don't fuck with the formula."
2. "Sammy Hagar turned Van Halen into a pop band." This one is false for several reasons. Firstly, it implies that Van Halen didn't have a poppy side when David Lee Roth was in the band. They very much did. Van Halen basically took what Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, Grand Funk, etc were doing in the early 70s, streamlined it, and made it more palatable. As far back as Van Halen II (1979), with Dance the Night Away, the band had a big foot in the pop pool. That increased in the 80s, especially with the last two albums from the DLR era, Diver Down (1982) and 1984. And, despite popular opinion, Eddie Van Halen was always the musical driver of the band, and he was starting to get into synths in a big way while Dave was still in the group.
Let's take a look at Hagar's debut with the band - 5150 (1986). Granted, there are two synth based hits - Why Can't This Be Love and Love Walks In, the latter being a full on ballad (a first for Van Halen) - but the other seven tracks are pretty much full on rockers.
I will concede that 1988's OU812 is pretty light for Van Halen, but they were not the only hard rock or metal group who were softening their edge for the late 80s MTV era. Also, take a listen to Dave's first couple solo albums. From the cover of California Girls to Just Like Paradise, he was every bit as poppy as his former band at the time.
Then, when you get into the 1990s, Van Halen (like many bands at the time) took synths out of their sound completely, and released the two heaviest albums of their career - For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge (1991) and Balance (1995).
So, to recap a bit, with Sammy Hagar fronted Van Halen, they released four albums. The vast majority of material on those albums rocks just as hard as anything in the DLR era. Yet, in 2020, people still insist "Van Hagar" was a pop group. But, not the version of Van Halen that released Jump???
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 7, 2020 13:34:56 GMT
You've nailed it with Van Halen. They were absolutely a pop-influenced band from the beginning. Whether via DLR's showmanship, Eddie's melodic guitar parts, Michael Anthony's harmony singing, or Alex's boogie shuffles, there was ALWAYS pop. This was a party band, a covers band, before they broke. That IS pop.
And they didn't save a damn thing. They contributed and built upon what had come before, opening up new and interesting paths.
Though it's funny, in 1991-92 they were among the bands credited YET AGAIN with "saving rock and roll," when their For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge joined the GnR Illusions and Metallica's black album as huge hits. At that time, the music press said the same thing: rock and roll was back, saved, by these bands.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 7, 2020 14:17:34 GMT
You've nailed it with Van Halen. They were absolutely a pop-influenced band from the beginning. Whether via DLR's showmanship, Eddie's melodic guitar parts, Michael Anthony's harmony singing, or Alex's boogie shuffles, there was ALWAYS pop. This was a party band, a covers band, before they broke. That IS pop.
And they didn't save a damn thing. They contributed and built upon what had come before, opening up new and interesting paths.
Though it's funny, in 1991-92 they were among the bands credited YET AGAIN with "saving rock and roll," when their For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge joined the GnR Illusions and Metallica's black album as huge hits. At that time, the music press said the same thing: rock and roll was back, saved, by these bands.
Right, and that was a few years after Appetite for Destruction "saved" rock and roll. Another thing about Van Halen, I recently read that that Balance, the final album with Hagar, was so dark and heavy, that the band were encouraged to write a potential hit, which wound up being I Can't Stop Loving You. Their contribution to the Twister soundtrack, Human's Being, was also a very heavy song.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 7, 2020 14:42:44 GMT
You know, I listened to Balance a lot when it came out, and I don't recall ever thinking of it as especially dark or heavy. Is that its reputation? Funny. But then again, I haven't listened to it probably since the first year it was released, or thought much about it since then. I need to give it a spin. Well, a metaphorical spin. A click.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 7, 2020 14:45:17 GMT
You know, I listened to Balance a lot when it came out, and I don't recall ever thinking of it as especially dark or heavy. Is that its reputation? Funny. But then again, I haven't listened to it probably since the first year it was released, or thought much about it since then. I need to give it a spin. Well, a metaphorical spin. A click. Easily their darkest album. I remember when it was released, Don't Tell Me What Love Can Do was the lead single, and it got a lot of attention for being a bit of a departure from Van Halen's brand of party rock. But, that was a time when even bands like Poison and Motley Crue were trying to be dark or moody.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 14, 2021 15:37:24 GMT
It is common knowledge that while the four "real" Velvet Underground albums are classics, the fifth and studio album is an atrocity that ought not even be listed as by the Velvet Underground.
And it is true that the fifth album, 1973's Squeeze, doesn't resemble its quartet of predecessors and is almost entirely the work of Doug Yule, the multi-instrumentalist who joined the group after John Cale was fired following the band's second album, White Light/White Heat. Yule wrote the songs, played most of the instruments (with Ian Paice drumming!), and sang almost everything (with some hired backup singers). While Yule created the music, manager Steve Sesnick reportedly oversaw the mix and final production.
There is no surprise that fans of the band's more experimental, noisy, or controversial work aren't fans of this mostly straight-ahead, pop-tinged rock music. There is no surprise that fans of the band's primary members and personalities--Cale, Lou Reed, Sterling Morrison, Maureen Tucker--aren't fans of this project's existence under the band's name.
So where's the false narrative?
The album, despite occasionally not just being derided but showing up on "Worst Albums of All Time" lists, isn't that bad. It's no masterpiece, to be sure. In fact, it's mediocre ... in spots, downright decent. In fact, I'd argue it's not much worse than Lou Reed's 1972 self-titled solo debut.
Don't take my word for it; judge for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 14, 2021 15:46:02 GMT
Wait, I thought this was the false narrative...... It is common knowledge that while the four "real" Velvet Underground albums are classics Bazinga. Just kidding, I know they're considered classics.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 14, 2021 16:28:12 GMT
Wait, I thought this was the false narrative...... It is common knowledge that while the four "real" Velvet Underground albums are classics Bazinga. Just kidding, I know they're considered classics. Ha. I actually almost put "common knowledge" in quotation marks because obviously my point was also that it's "common knowledge" that the last one is a disaster ... so "common knowledge" is far from infallible!
This particular example is, I think, also a nice example of how much fashion or identification comes into this kind of thing. VU fans are often of a certain type, in some ways comparable to '90s grunge musicians (disdain for mass appeal to the point of elitism, avoidance of the flowery, sunshiney, summery, or even "good time/party" aesthetics), though in other ways less so (usually more literate and elitist culturally, as opposed to a more "anti-everything" grunge approach).
With that in mind, I don't think it's a coincidence that the "canonical" VU album most disliked by their fans is Loaded, which is by far the most commercial. And with that in mind, it's even less a coincidence how much they hate Squeeze. If Loaded could conflict them, as it was the product of heroin-hipster supreme Lou Reed's pen, with him out of the way there was no longer any roadblock to pure hatred.
But I'd bet that were Squeeze simply released under a different band's name (and under different circumstances label-wise, budget-wise, etc.), it wouldn't have been despised in the least. Mostly ignored, yeah, probably. But not hated. A different audience would have accepted it as a competent, sometimes pretty decent album.
It's as if Metallica had released a jazz fusion album in 1988 instead of Justice. The quality of the album becomes almost irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 14, 2021 16:45:02 GMT
Wait, I thought this was the false narrative...... It is common knowledge that while the four "real" Velvet Underground albums are classics Bazinga. Just kidding, I know they're considered classics. Ha. I actually almost put "common knowledge" in quotation marks because obviously my point was also that it's "common knowledge" that the last one is a disaster ... so "common knowledge" is far from infallible!
This particular example is, I think, also a nice example of how much fashion or identification comes into this kind of thing. VU fans are often of a certain type, in some ways comparable to '90s grunge musicians (disdain for mass appeal to the point of elitism, avoidance of the flowery, sunshiney, summery, or even "good time/party" aesthetics), though in other ways less so (usually more literate and elitist culturally, as opposed to a more "anti-everything" grunge approach).
With that in mind, I don't think it's a coincidence that the "canonical" VU album most disliked by their fans is Loaded, which is by far the most commercial. And with that in mind, it's even less a coincidence how much they hate Squeeze. If Loaded could conflict them, as it was the product of heroin-hipster supreme Lou Reed's pen, with him out of the way there was no longer any roadblock to pure hatred.
But I'd bet that were Squeeze simply released under a different band's name (and under different circumstances label-wise, budget-wise, etc.), it wouldn't have been despised in the least. Mostly ignored, yeah, probably. But not hated. A different audience would have accepted it as a competent, sometimes pretty decent album.
It's as if Metallica had released a jazz fusion album in 1988 instead of Justice. The quality of the album becomes almost irrelevant.
I feel that way about some of the later Black Sabbath albums with Tony Martin on vocals. Had they been released as Tony Iommi solo albums, I think they'd be much more revered.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 14, 2021 17:13:52 GMT
Speaking of false narratives, and that we're at the break up portion of The Beatles thread.
"Yoko broke up The Beatles" might be the ultimate false narrative in popular music. Did she contribute to the eventual breakup? That's possible. But, saying she is the reason for the break up is a huge oversimplification.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 14, 2021 17:16:43 GMT
Speaking of false narratives, and that we're at the break up portion of The Beatles thread. "Yoko broke up The Beatles" might be the ultimate false narrative in popular music. Did she contribute to the eventual breakup? That's possible. But, saying she is the reason for the break up is a huge oversimplification. Good one to note. I think it's fair to say that, yes, her presence annoyed some of the other Beatles sometimes. So sure, it contributed to the breakup. That's fair.
But you could also list any number of other contributing factors, from Allen Klein (and indirectly even Brian Epstein ... or at least his death) to time to Beatlemania itself.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 14, 2021 18:06:25 GMT
Speaking of false narratives, and that we're at the break up portion of The Beatles thread. "Yoko broke up The Beatles" might be the ultimate false narrative in popular music. Did she contribute to the eventual breakup? That's possible. But, saying she is the reason for the break up is a huge oversimplification. Good one to note. I think it's fair to say that, yes, her presence annoyed some of the other Beatles sometimes. So sure, it contributed to the breakup. That's fair.
But you could also list any number of other contributing factors, from Allen Klein (and indirectly even Brian Epstein ... or at least his death) to time to Beatlemania itself.
Plus, imagine the strain of trying to cover up for the death of a bandmember while in your prime.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 15, 2021 12:42:19 GMT
Here's another. It might not be so much a false narrative as much as some details being missed as years go by.
"Jethro Tull beat Metallica for best metal album in the Grammys."
Yes, in 1989, Jethro Tull beat Metallica in the Grammys for Best Hard Rock or Heavy Metal. And, yes, Tull wore a few hats, and whenever this story gets passed around, it's often the folkish bit of Tull that are recalled, but they have quite a collection of hard rockers in their canon. The winner LP Crest of the Knave was no Aqualung for sure.
And, Metallica weren't the only group who got snubbed here. AC/DC, Iggy Pop, and Jane's Addiction were also nominated. So, Metallica were the only metal band to even get nominated, making them a bit of a square peg in that group.
I think one of the things I find weird about this is that some metal fans hold a grudge against Jethro Tull, as if it was their fault that the Grammmys are clueless. But, and I hate to say this as a metal fan, but some of the most vocal metalheads do have a tendency to be equally clueless (ie. thinking Tull are just a folk group).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 15, 2021 12:44:30 GMT
Iggy Pop was nominated that year? Funny, I have no recollection of him being a prominent artist at that time.
The idea of blaming Jethro Tull: good call-out, it is stupid. It's like blaming a football player for where getting drafted "too high." What's he supposed to do, say no?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Apr 15, 2021 12:46:51 GMT
Iggy Pop was nominated that year? Funny, I have no recollection of him being a prominent artist at that time.
The idea of blaming Jethro Tull: good call-out, it is stupid. It's like blaming a football player for where getting drafted "too high." What's he supposed to do, say no?
Oddly enough, I read that Tull, Metallica, AC/DC, and Jane's Addiction were all nominated for albums, but Iggy was nominated for a track called "Cold Metal." So, the Grammys can't nominate five artists based on the same criteria.
|
|