Howdy. The above title signals the gist of my research. I'm curious to investigate bands that made the crossover from subculture to popular culture, and (according to fan bases) lost some of their credibility/authenticity/artistic integrity/coolness (whatever you wanna call it).
At the same time I'm interested that some bands have become commercially successful but still attain the allure of being 'underground' (for fans anyway). Ian mentioned the fact there will always be some ongoing tension between artistic production and commerce, and I guess I will need to consider this dynamic in my research.
Being a brissie girl, I can't help but raise the question of....ahem...Powderfinger.
I heard someone on Triple Zed dissing their music the other day, and, quite frankly, I agree that 'new' powderfinger is not high on rotation at my house. However 'new' Nick Cave is, and Triple Zed play his songs. They also play Kate Miller-Heidke (just signed to Sony).
They're Australian artists with commercial clout and great popularity....So what's the difference?? ?
On a personal level, I'd be quite happy to go see Regurgitator, or Ed Kuepper, or Dave Graney (or any other Australian acts that have 'sort of' made it. ) But I wonder why I (and many of my friends) draw the line at bands like Powderfinger, and poor old Silverchair. (Feel a bit iffy about Eskimo Joe too).
Clearly, these are my subjective opinions. I'm no arbiter on what's 'authentic' music and what isn't, and I reckon all these bands have produced some great music at times. But what is it that turns me off them now???
These are all random thoughts for now. I'll try to be more cohesive next post.
TA TA.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment