home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU!mulka!cde
- From: cde@mulka (Colin Entwisle)
- Newsgroups: aus.music
- Subject: Re: Jamie defends Kylie, news at 11
- Date: 22 Jan 1993 05:32:16 GMT
- Organization: University of Melbourne
- Lines: 28
- Message-ID: <1jo0t0INNds7@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
- References: <1993Jan22.012100.11196@iconix.oz.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: mulka.ph.unimelb.edu.au
- X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL8]
-
- Chris Karadaglis (ck@iconix.oz.au) wrote:
-
- : Jamie - I don't really know what gave you the impression that I don't
- : like Australian music - but I'm talking about a different brand of
- : >MUSIC< than you. Take bands like Falling Joys, Clouds, Maybe Dolls,
- : Divinyls, early INXS, the Fauves, Nick Cave, Things of Stone and Wood,
- : etc etc etc. This is what I call good Australian music. Then take
- : the late Jimmy Barnes, Michael Hutchpants, Kylie, Dannnniii, Jason,
- : Craig McLaughin', etc etc etc, who have either sold out to the marketing
- : droids and/or failed to produce anything which resembles music unless
- : your definition of music is a MIDI sequencer controlling a million
- : synthesisers, a pitch-correction box for your vocals (Stock, Aiken &
- : Waterman used this for Kylie), and a drum machine on speed. I love
- : Australian music because it's raw, full of energy and doesn't conform
- : to a marketing strategy. This is my definition of music. From what I
- : see, yours is based on charts and sales, and no tits.
-
- speaking of basing your definition of music on chart succes,
- howcome all your acceptable bands have not had major chart success
- and all your unacceptable persons have.
-
- gee - if i didnt know betta i would say that your
- taste was based soley on the charts.
-
- CE
-
- ps - does sold out mean had success??
- ie their record sold out literally
-