R
realitybites
Guest
This was one of the best things that I have read in a very long time. Are you a regular poster here? You are a very gifted writer.
Assuming the person who told you this was talking about someone's age in 2004 rather than simply a 21-year old, it's not as mean a comment as it sounds.
There are elements of The Smiths that are either hidden or appear slightly distorted when the band is not considered holistically. For example, Morrissey's wearing of Levis's and hearing aids and so forth makes more sense if you were a teenager living through the mid-80s because it helps to know what he was reacting against.
This doesn't mean that people born after "Hand In Glove" was released can't understand The Smiths or are somehow lesser fans. They're not. They're just as "legitimate" as other fans (as if there's some test). It's just to say that it's difficult to see them as clearly and fully as do the people who lived through that era. The same can be said of The Beatles or The Sex Pistols or Elvis.
On the other hand, it's also true that people who are 21 and younger can probably hear things in the music that older people cannot, so who's to say it all doesn't cancel out? Maybe there are shadings in the music that a person coming of age in the vapid 90s can hear that someone who grew up in the horrors of the Reagan/Thatcher decade might miss.
As long as the "You can't understand" comment was made without malice, it can possibly be helpful if it gets you to ask questions. I know I've gained immense insight into the music of the late Seventies by researching that time period as much as I can, because I was too young for that first poison efflorescence of punk. Bands like the Pistols, The Clash, The Jam, Buzzcocks, and so on mean a lot of more to me now than they did when I first heard them. But will I ever share the understanding of someone who was 14 when "Anarchy In The U.K." came out? No.
Of course, historicizing has other facets. Being American, I will never understand The Smiths quite as well as someone who didn't have to research Whalley Range or NHS specs, as I did. That doesn't spoil my appreciation of the actual music, but unquestionably the records were deeply enriched the more I explored their background. In fact, not only didn't it ruin anything, I found it fun.
But whereas one can easily annotate the The Smiths to provide the basic facts, it's much more difficult to capture the zeitgeist in which the band was born. I think other people who grew up in the Eighties would agree with me when I suggest that a very different picture of that decade has surfaced, one that bears scant resemblance to the reality of those years. I don't wish to end on a catty note, but every time I visit this board and find someone going on about Duran f***ing Duran, I do wonder if something essential has been lost on the younger fans.
That's the peril of pop culture. For anyone who isn't a casual listener-- for all of us who make treasure of trash-- there's no bigger oxymoron than a "timeless" pop song.
Assuming the person who told you this was talking about someone's age in 2004 rather than simply a 21-year old, it's not as mean a comment as it sounds.
There are elements of The Smiths that are either hidden or appear slightly distorted when the band is not considered holistically. For example, Morrissey's wearing of Levis's and hearing aids and so forth makes more sense if you were a teenager living through the mid-80s because it helps to know what he was reacting against.
This doesn't mean that people born after "Hand In Glove" was released can't understand The Smiths or are somehow lesser fans. They're not. They're just as "legitimate" as other fans (as if there's some test). It's just to say that it's difficult to see them as clearly and fully as do the people who lived through that era. The same can be said of The Beatles or The Sex Pistols or Elvis.
On the other hand, it's also true that people who are 21 and younger can probably hear things in the music that older people cannot, so who's to say it all doesn't cancel out? Maybe there are shadings in the music that a person coming of age in the vapid 90s can hear that someone who grew up in the horrors of the Reagan/Thatcher decade might miss.
As long as the "You can't understand" comment was made without malice, it can possibly be helpful if it gets you to ask questions. I know I've gained immense insight into the music of the late Seventies by researching that time period as much as I can, because I was too young for that first poison efflorescence of punk. Bands like the Pistols, The Clash, The Jam, Buzzcocks, and so on mean a lot of more to me now than they did when I first heard them. But will I ever share the understanding of someone who was 14 when "Anarchy In The U.K." came out? No.
Of course, historicizing has other facets. Being American, I will never understand The Smiths quite as well as someone who didn't have to research Whalley Range or NHS specs, as I did. That doesn't spoil my appreciation of the actual music, but unquestionably the records were deeply enriched the more I explored their background. In fact, not only didn't it ruin anything, I found it fun.
But whereas one can easily annotate the The Smiths to provide the basic facts, it's much more difficult to capture the zeitgeist in which the band was born. I think other people who grew up in the Eighties would agree with me when I suggest that a very different picture of that decade has surfaced, one that bears scant resemblance to the reality of those years. I don't wish to end on a catty note, but every time I visit this board and find someone going on about Duran f***ing Duran, I do wonder if something essential has been lost on the younger fans.
That's the peril of pop culture. For anyone who isn't a casual listener-- for all of us who make treasure of trash-- there's no bigger oxymoron than a "timeless" pop song.
