When I was a teen, getting over the fanbase of Led Zeppelin was a major stumbling block. Andyr and I went to a small private school with about 12 "cool kids" spread over grades 9-12 and about 4 would-be cool kids, of which we fancied ourselves half that number. The cool kids were into Zeppelin et al. We were into punk rock. I hated Zeppelin because of what their fans represented to me, that is, a blocked entry to Coolsville. I knew I belonged there, but nooooooooo... Guys were too busy learning the unaccompanied solo at the end of "Heartbreaker". Only when I was in college and started getting over my hangups with Coolsville circa 1979 did I start to like a lot of Zeppelin's music. By that time, too, all my peers who had been into that stuff and that lifestyle had moved on. As roadblocks go, it could have been worse.

Seger fans are the worst.

Philadelphia Eagles fans.

Toby Keith fans.

Minus the few of them who were good friends, Springsteen fans.

Reggae fans. I couldn't stomach reggae for many years because of them. Especially where I went to school - you had all kinds of annoying white kids who thought they were Rastafari because they grew (or tried to grow) dreads, played hackey sack, and smoked pot.

Once I got out of Dodge, I started to really listen for the first time.

It's not so bad from where I sit, but I gather that in the northeast Springsteen fans can be pretty intolerable.

The problem is always the music fan who focuses his or her mania on a single artist to the exclusion of all others. One of the great things about RTH is that we're all maniacs about a variety of musicians, so it doesn't feel claustrophobic.

Toby Keith fans?!?! Dr. John, are you telling us you've had an interest in hearing the music of Toby Keith but you've been put off by his fans?

Radiohead. Seriously.

good one, homefront.

i must add a caveat, however: berlyant is an exception. he displays none of their stepford tendencies. seriously.

For cultural anthropology purposes, strictly.

Elvis Costello. (Who didn't know I was going to say that?)

i must add a caveat, however: berlyant is an exception. he displays none of their stepford tendencies. seriously.

Well, uh, thanks. I am curious, though, what you mean by Stepford tendencies. I have a vague idea of what you're implying here, but I'm not sure. And why are these tendencies specific to Radiohead?

Elvis Costello. (Who didn't know I was going to say that?)

Actually, I thought you were gonna go for Lou Reed, so I'm slightly disappointed. :-)

Beastie Boys fans.
Lollapallooza 94
fuckin rough!

Nah, Matt. Lou Reed's just awful. EC has enough good songs that I'd dive in deeper if it didn't mean possibly becoming an Elvis Costello fan.

Beastie Boys fans.
Lollapallooza 94
fuckin rough!

I've seen The Beastie Boys on numerous occasions and I wouldn't describe the fans overall as "rough". Then again, I probably have different standards than some of you since I used to foutinely go to hardcore shows at City Gardens, CBGBs and other like places. Now, let me tell you, Cromags and Agnostic Front fans are rough. I also got kicked in the nose once at a Sick of It All show at City Gardens. Good times. :-)

Nah, Matt. Lou Reed's just awful. EC has enough good songs that I'd dive in deeper if it didn't mean possibly becoming an Elvis Costello fan.

As a massive fan, I'm glad to hear that you like at least a few EC songs. Which ones, out of curiousity? As for Lou, do think the Velvet Underground or just his solo stuff is "awful"? Just curious.

Matt, I mean that the Radiohead fans I have encounter tend to be an exceptionally frightening breed of brainwashed "true believers", like "Stepford Wives".

They don't dare think critically about their band. Any mistakes the band has made, any perceived clunkers in their oeuvre are someone else's fault.

you, on the other hand, are not like that. you're much more even-handed.

I'm so out of it that I didn't know Radiohead had a certain core fanbase that could be annoying. I know they have a large fanbase, but I didn't know they had a lot in common.

I never think of Costello fans as annoying, but now that I do think about how we act when in a room together, I think I see what Rick means.

My kids are Radiohead fans and they seem okay. I still think Radiohead mostly sucks, but the kids are okay.

Way back when the internets was Prodigy for me, the Zeppelin fans were intolerable. If a guy said he had ten bootlegs, then thread turned into two hundred posts about how you couldn't be a "real" fan unless you had at least X amount of bootlegs. I stayed out of the general rock discussion because that just got so old.

The band I should have always loved that I couldn't get into because their fans were total assholes around here was J. Geils Band. I should love that stuff to death, but those big, dumb jocks that beat everybody up loved them so much that I can't get into them even now. That was a long, long time ago and I'm still not over it. By now I guess I never will be.

Let me play Mwall for a second and turn this around: Has there ever been a band whose fans have tickled your interest? I'm thinking that rebellious kids might have simply been turned onto trying punk for the attitude and tough fashion. I know that hippie stuff attracts me, sometimes, because of the fans - especially the kind of hippie guys who smoke pipes - tobacco ones.

Mr. Moderator, try wandering over to Pitchforkmedia sometime if you want to understand my Radiohead Meh-ness.

Thinking about this some more, I think Furiously Masturbating Critical Acclaim is the biggest roadblock to embracing certain bands, and often ends up making me question certain Standard Rock Beliefs.

I liked the Velvet Underground, but learnt to hate them due to bands thinking three chords, drug references and a bunch of noise is the epitome of rock coolness. Do we really need a world full of posuers like the Dandy Warhols? If their children are so obnoxious, don't you have to look back at the parents and wonder?

And if drugs are so damn cool, how come the hair metal bands like Poison etc aren't equally venerated for living the 'Rock n Roll Lifestyle'?

The over-the-top arse-licking reviews of 'Automatic for the people' made me hate REM, when i realised that the melody of 'Nightswimming' is mainly the same phrase repeated, continually ending on the same note, (which is frowned upon in harmonic theory as being tedious and amateurish).

Then i realised that 'Drive' had no real melody, and was just Stipe singing the root note of each chord. Then i went back even further and realised 'Losing My Religion' has a four note range, and the majority of the song only uses three of those notes.

Nirvana! 'Smells like Teen Spirit' only has 8 bars of actual melody, (two of which are an inversion of the first two), and the rest is repetition. Reviewers actually called those second and third intervals 'Melodic'.

I've never heard Bowie really slagged off until a mate told me that 'Let's Dance' sounded like a 'drunk Katherine Hepburn'.

Good stuff, Homefront, but do I really have to visit Pitchfork? Now you're getting into the hurdles set by critics, many of whom seem more interested in acting as arms of PR departments and "street teams," which is another worthy topic for discussion.

Homefront said:

I liked the Velvet Underground, but learnt to hate them due to bands thinking three chords, drug references and a bunch of noise is the epitome of rock coolness. Do we really need a world full of posuers like the Dandy Warhols? If their children are so obnoxious, don't you have to look back at the parents and wonder?

And if drugs are so damn cool, how come the hair metal bands like Poison etc aren't equally venerated for living the 'Rock n Roll Lifestyle'?

I say:

My hero!

The over-the-top arse-licking reviews of 'Automatic for the people' made me hate REM

I call that record "Automatic for the birds"

ac

Homefront said:

I liked the Velvet Underground, but learnt to hate them due to bands thinking three chords, drug references and a bunch of noise is the epitome of rock coolness. Do we really need a world full of posuers like the Dandy Warhols? If their children are so obnoxious, don't you have to look back at the parents and wonder?

And if drugs are so damn cool, how come the hair metal bands like Poison etc aren't equally venerated for living the 'Rock n Roll Lifestyle'?

I say:

My hero!

And I say that both of you are full of it and you don't even realize it. Sure the Velvets influenced The Dandy Warhols (who actually have their moments IMO), but they also influenced Yo La Tengo, Galaxie 500, Luna as well as The Clean (and consequently the entire New Zealand indie-pop scene; i.e. the Flying Nun scene). All of these artists, not to mention the Jesus and Mary Chain and consequently anything that can labelled "noise pop" or "shoegaze" does not equate to "poseur". You're just blindly dissing entire sub-genres of music here, but if that's your trip, then be my guest.

And if drugs are so damn cool, how come the hair metal bands like Poison etc aren't equally venerated for living the 'Rock n Roll Lifestyle'?

The over-the-top arse-licking reviews of 'Automatic for the people' made me hate REM, when i realised that the melody of 'Nightswimming' is mainly the same phrase repeated, continually ending on the same note, (which is frowned upon in harmonic theory as being tedious and amateurish).

Then i realised that 'Drive' had no real melody, and was just Stipe singing the root note of each chord. Then i went back even further and realised 'Losing My Religion' has a four note range, and the majority of the song only uses three of those notes.

Nirvana! 'Smells like Teen Spirit' only has 8 bars of actual melody, (two of which are an inversion of the first two), and the rest is repetition. Reviewers actually called those second and third intervals 'Melodic'.

I've never heard Bowie really slagged off until a mate told me that 'Let's Dance' sounded like a 'drunk Katherine Hepburn'.

I'm calling major bullshit here, too. Who cares how repetitive, melodic (or not) these songs are or about harmonic theory, for that matter? I think you should be hanging out on some Sam Ash/Berklee School of Music graduate site for virtuosos if that's what you value the most.

OK, sorry for the cheap shots, but shouldn't the overall sound matter more than a song's structure?

I get your point here. Reviewers can be misguided and it can be hard for a record to live up to expectations. But it isn't an artist's fault!

As for Bowie, his '80s records and Tin Machine routinely get slagged off and as for Poison, I think it's about both sound and image and not just about drug intake. Besides, Poison sold a lot more records, so why do you feel so sorry for them? I really hate that bullshit when people stand up for less critically-liked artists in the name of "fairness" when the more critically-liked bands couldn't sell anything and didn't get a fair shake on MTV or the radio back in the day (or now).

Man you all are pissing me off me today. Oh and I love "Nightswimming".

*caveat: I actually like a few Poison songs

Matt, I mean that the Radiohead fans I have encounter tend to be an exceptionally frightening breed of brainwashed "true believers", like "Stepford Wives".

They don't dare think critically about their band. Any mistakes the band has made, any perceived clunkers in their oeuvre are someone else's fault.

See, I don't think so. I think that most Radiohead fans would acknowledge that Pablo Honey, their first album, is at the very least quite mediocre compared to their later records. I'm definitely one of those people. And who would these people blame for this album? The producers (Sean Slade and Paul Q. Kolderie)? I don't think so. They produced a lot of great records, too. Off the top of my head, there's most of the Morphine catalog and a lot of other Boston stuff, too.

There are also tons of people who like the The Bends and OK Computer but don't really care for the more experimental stuff that has come afterwards. I think those people don't really get what the band is all about, but that's their right.

And yes, I know you hate Morphine, saturn, but that's not my point here.

The problem with the fanbase issue, as i see it, is that if the fans are bugging you so much, you may find yourself looking for bands who don't have any assholes in their fanbase. I'm not sure such a thing is possible. If it is, it can lead you to some really boring music.

You know, maybe I'm risking an RTH dead horse, but I'd like to hear some more about the anti-VU sentiments. I gotta say, I think there's plenty in their catalog that Massimo and Hrrundi could appreciate. In an important way, they have a lot in common with prime-era Kinks. Lou Reed and Ray Davies were both writing incredibly literate songs that aimed to get inside different characters and situations and show you (rather than tell you) what they felt like. So one guy wrote a lot about drug dealers and the other about middle-class Brit suburbanites. So? Do I also have to choose between Mike Leigh films and HBO's The Wire?

I think an anti VU conversation is a new thread...right?

Let's not forget that REM made four killer records that were artistically weird enough that the mainstream listener didn't really get them.

I think the "newbie" fans attracted by Green and Automatic could well be annoying, and probably have little knowledge of the band's best work.

As for VU, we all know that HVB hates them as much as Dylan, so this must be his week!

All I can say is that any slagging of VU must take into account the following:

1) that the first album broke new ground, most prominently in the use of guitar feedback/noise.

2) that each record changed their sound (this was a band that refused to do the same thing just to sell records); there are many different VU songs and one does need to like all of them to argue for the band's artistic merit.

3) Moe Tucker's cool drumming.

Clarification--I meant to write:

there are many different VU songs, and one does NOT need to like all of them to argue for the band's artistic merit.

Let's not forget that REM made four killer records that were artistically weird enough that the mainstream listener didn't really get them.

Well sure, but they got more popular with each album and though they didn't have a breakthrough mainstream hit until "The One I Love"
, I think the grounwork for their success was set with Life's Rich Pageant, a record which more than any others they had made that came before it, embraced slightly more mainstream (at that time) production values.

I think the "newbie" fans attracted by Green and Automatic could well be annoying, and probably have little knowledge of the band's best work.

This ignores history. Again, many of these fans were drawn in by Document and specifically the success of "The One I Love". And despite what I read here, REM were able to keep their core fanbase after moving from I.R.S. to Warners. And what about Out of Time, you know that little 10-million selling record between the 2 you cite above that also won them lots of new fans while only a few branded them "sellouts"? Your analysis just doesn't compute. Plus, it's presumptuous. Sure, hugely successful bands like REM create lots of casual fans. So what's your point? Again, the difference is that they gained a core fanbase through years of touring, college radio support, etc. and I would argue that fanbase is still there, at least to some extent, though many may argue about the merits of their later records.

All I can say is that any slagging of VU must take into account the following:

1) that the first album broke new ground, most prominently in the use of guitar feedback/noise.

2) that each record changed their sound (this was a band that refused to do the same thing just to sell records); there are many different VU songs and one does need to like all of them to argue for the band's artistic merit.

3) Moe Tucker's cool drumming.

I agree with all of this except for #1. I don't buy the notion that it was groundbreaking for that reason. John Cale, as a member of The Dream Syndicate with Tony Conrad, LaMonte Young and Angus MacLise, essentially invented guitar feedback/noise (or at least its intentional use), but VU were the ones to do it first in a rock and roll context. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked.

Berlyant wrote:

I agree with all of this except for #1. I don't buy the notion that it was groundbreaking for that reason. John Cale, as a member of The Dream Syndicate with Tony Conrad, LaMonte Young and Angus MacLise, essentially invented guitar feedback/noise (or at least its intentional use), but VU were the ones to do it first in a rock and roll context. This is an important distinction that is often overlooked.

Townsman, Townsman, Townsman... I thought we'd moved beyond these cliched rock-crit reminders. Who on the planet - living or dead - heard these "groundbreaking works"? Should keyboards just come with a built-in function that spits out these words on Cale's stint with the groundbreaking LaMonte Young whenever anyone types the words "Velvet Underground" or "John Cale"? This is one of those things like the automatic "classically trained" that accompanies the names of Cale, Van Dyke Parks, and anyone in rock who has remedial knowledge of reading music. Ugh! Give the VU their due. If anyone made records - RECORDS (show me a LaMonte Young record of one of his week-long drones that predated the VU) - with songs like "Heroin" before the VU, please tell us about them and move to the head of the class.

Townsman, Townsman, Townsman... I thought we'd moved beyond these cliched rock-crit reminders. Who on the planet - living or dead - heard these "groundbreaking works"? Should keyboards just come with a built-in function that spits out these words on Cale's stint with the groundbreaking LaMonte Young whenever anyone types the words "Velvet Underground" or "John Cale"? This is one of those things like the automatic "classically trained" that accompanies the names of Cale, Van Dyke Parks, and anyone in rock who has remedial knowledge of reading music. Ugh! Give the VU their due. If anyone made records - RECORDS (show me a LaMonte Young record of one of his week-long drones that predated the VU) - with songs like "Heroin" before the VU, please tell us about them and move to the head of the class.

Sorry! I had no idea it was such a cliche. My understanding was that few knew this, even many who cite the Velvets' obvious influence and innovation (which I'm not denying BTW; I'm as big of a fan as anyone on this list). Seriously! You can strike it from the comments if it's that obvious.

I'm just saying that these ideas came from elsewhere (the avant-garde minimalist composers, in this case) and were just incorporated into rock and roll.

2)there are many different VU songs and one does need to like all of them to argue for the band's artistic merit.

You mean the soft, fragile, vulnerable one with the simplistic quasi-nursery rhyme melody, or the loud, raw, distorted, rhythmic partly-noise one?

I honestly think the sing-song melodies of the former are the reason for their enduring popularity. They're basically 'Wiggles' songs with drug references, and like children's songs, anyone can pick up a guitar and play them.

I've also just realised that maybe they're also to blame for the fragile preciousness of the cuddlecore bands and the Belles and Sebastians of the world where the song is just such an innocent baby bird that they can barely sing it aloud for fear of damaging it.

My main frustration is the uniformity of opinion - everyone has the exact same talking points about the band... such as how groundbreaking Lou Reed's lyrics were in speaking of addiction and drug use.

Anyone know Luke Jordan's 'Cocaine Blues' from 1927? Covered by Dylan, Drake, Williams Sr and Cash? It's basically 'Waiting For The Man'.

Started down Beall Street and I'm turnin' up Main,
Lookin' for a gal that sells cocaine.
Cocaine run all 'round my brain.

Well, I reached into my pocket, grabbed my poke,
Note in my pocket said, ""No more coke.""
Cocaine run all 'round my brain.

Cocaine's for horses, not for men,
They tell me it'll kill me, but they won't say when.
Cocaine run all 'round my brain.

I've also just realised that maybe they're also to blame for the fragile preciousness of the cuddlecore bands and the Belles and Sebastians of the world where the song is just such an innocent baby bird that they can barely sing it aloud for fear of damaging it.

Well at least you're not being reductivist.

Homefront forgot to mention Jackson Browne's cover of Cocaine Blues (on Runnin' on Empty). And come to think of it there's only one degree of separation from Jackson Browne to the Velvets (via Nico).

The more I think about it, the more I wonder what really is the problem we have with these supposedly impossible fans. I mean, how often does one have to interact with such people? A live concert or club gig is the only setting I can think of where it really matters.

When I saw the Minutemen, I despised the people who thought it was fun to knock over people like me. Hardcore lunkheads were assholes. Agreed. But I still love(d) the Minutemen.

I'm sure if I had met some diehard Smiths fan in the 80s and they had wanted to bend my ear, I would have found them annoying, but that doesn't really ever happen.

When I saw Bob Marley play, there was a guy standing next to me who looked like Mark Farner. He had no sense of rhythm, clapped on the wrong beat, and was just generally clueless. I was letting him get to me, and then I realized that he loved Bob too, and he was there enjoying himself, and I should lighten up and stop thinking I alone understood what I was hearing.

I'm afraid that it's the music nerd's egotism (and I'm not excluding myself here) that gets in the way when we claim that fans get in the way of our freedom to enjoy music.

Wow; sorry I haven't been around!

VU are OK, but I don't usually have much desire to put them on. I find solo Lou Reed insufferable. Can't sing, can't play, his guitar should be headless. That clip of him doing "Soul Man" that was up last week? The problem is, it's not that far removed from his usual ouevre. (I did specify Lou Reed, not VU.)

Who cares how repetitive, melodic (or not) these songs are or about harmonic theory, for that matter?

I do. You don't have to. (And I don't always - I love Nightswimming, in part because the oboe can do no wrong ever.) But more importantly, what bothers me (and, I think, homefront) is not that these melodically childish songs were well-liked, but that these melodically childish songs were routinely praised because they were supposedly so melodic.

I never think of Costello fans as annoying, but now that I do think about how we act when in a room together, I think I see what Rick means.

Particularly when there's one non-fan in the room. "Gee, your constant badgering has made me see the light! I now love Elvis Costello!"
Not to mention the arguments between fans over what song to play to turn me around and set me right.

Let me play Mwall for a second and turn this around: Has there ever been a band whose fans have tickled your interest? I'm thinking that rebellious kids might have simply been turned onto trying punk for the attitude and tough fashion.

Punk rock, definitely. No band in particular; just the idea. (And, less nobly, a thing for popsicle-colored hair.)

Steve, in the 80s at George Washington University, I didn't have to go to a Springsteen show to be annoyed by Springsteen fans. I could go to most parties on campus on any weekend and be annoyed by them. I admit, I have my limits. I could never wrap my mind around tie-dye shirt-wearing Republican drug dealers either.

Who on the planet - living or dead - heard these "groundbreaking works"? Should keyboards just come with a built-in function that spits out these words on Cale's stint with the groundbreaking LaMonte Young whenever anyone types the words "Velvet Underground" or "John Cale"?

Mr. Mod is revealing some ignorance here. Tony Conrad and LaMonte Young are revered, genuinely famous names in contemporary classical music and all forms of the new music experiments that came out of that context. They're essential figures in performance and visual art circles as well.

I once had the pleasure of interviewing Conrad for a Buffalo, NY arts and culture magazine--he's lived there for many years. A smart and accomplished artist and musician. Lamonte Young was more of a weirdo who finally went totally mad. I can tell you an interesting story about how he burned his own house down, also in Buffalo.

BigSteve wrote:

The more I think about it, the more I wonder what really is the problem we have with these supposedly impossible fans. I mean, how often does one have to interact with such people? A live concert or club gig is the only setting I can think of where it really matters.

See, that's why I was blessed with having Led Zeppelin fans be this hanguup for me. I graduated high school, got away from a few guys who threatened my self-esteem, got high, got laid, heard them some more, realized they were actually pretty great.

Mwall wrote:

Mr. Mod is revealing some ignorance here. Tony Conrad and LaMonte Young are revered, genuinely famous names in contemporary classical music and all forms of the new music experiments that came out of that context. They're essential figures in performance and visual art circles as well.

No, I'm aware of this, but you're basically talking about the 5 dozen people who along with me watch the Ovation network. The VU's work in spreading these ideas is much greater. I don't disregard the credit due to those who've actually set the pace for their garage versions of that work. My beef is with critics who throw that fact out there as if it's part of a copyright agreement. How many rock critics have heard the music of LaMonte Young and how many just feel it necesary to spit out this fact?

Mr. Mod, I wouldn't want to get into statistics here, but let's just say that the world of the visual and performing arts and new music is quite a bit bigger than you suggest, and there's a lot of fucking money in it too. You get yourself in the Whitney, and people all over the world, and lots of them, know who you are.

That said, what I would accept is your point that the world of rock and roll and pop culture vultures and the world of the "high" performing arts don't cross paths much. Conrad and Young's fame in their (significantly sizable) context certainly did not translate to their being household names in the culture of rock fans.

Again, Mwall, the focus on my wrath is on rock-crits who only pump out taht modifier without actually knowing what it means. I HEAVILY suspect that 99% of rock critics have not heard a note of any of Cale's forefathers.

I don't doubt it. It sure would be interesting to find out which rock critics in particular are guilty. Clearly, I'm just now beginning to really get into this blame game.