Siouxsie and the Banshees Reissues

[Marillionboy]

How brilliant, Make Up to Break Up available at last!!!!

[Larsen B]

How brilliant' date=' Make Up to Break Up available at last!!!![/quote']

Gimme Make Up the Breakdown anyday.

[connie]

the world was dancing to shit like Billy Joel.

Fuck off, Billy Joel is not shit.

[threeornothing]

Id stick with b)

cos even the one track ''Love in a Void'' from the Peel sessions is probably one of the most defining sounds or recordings of that era - a single moment when punk actually took a rare leap forwards into something new

Fucking right there sir!!

[Steve Temple]

]1) Being namechecked doesn't mean you're good.

What does "good" mean? It isn't quantifiable. what is quantifiable is cultural significance, and one indication of this is whether you inspire a new generation of young bands, as Jimmy Jazz said.

3) Being known isn't what makes a band great.

It sure as hell is part of it. There is no point making pop music if it doesn't penetrate the public conscience and somehow define and era or generation (as it happens, i think the Banshees were suitably accessible as to do this, but not so as accessible that your mum would whistle their tunes. They therefore reached the perfect state)

[Steve Temple]

Part One: "Good" is a matter of opinion... however' date=' it's not belief that just because you're not a superstar you aren't "good"

I think having something that cuts itself from a wider audience makes you feel more special as a fan, I feel I get more out of it.[/quote']

I know what you mean, but surely The Banshees lyrics, sound and style did alienate the right people, not just your parents and teachers but teeny-boppers and sincere rock-types.

However, and I think this is the crux of the original argument, who is going to feel special as a fan now, when the band are old and all-but gone, they no longer are at the vanguard of a movement, and the records you listen to are over 20 years old? That is why Betamax's "essential" claim was erroneous. The only essential releases are the new and relevant

[Steve Temple]

I'm going to take issue with your last point there. What do you mean by "relevant"' date=' exactly? Do you mean that people should only listen to recordings made within the last year that reflect the social climate and the current zeitgeist? At which point in time do they cease to be essential or relevant, becoming mere curios of a bygone age?[/quote']

Young people (and it was all young people on this thread until you showed up!) should only follow current movements, because it is only current moevements that will define their generation, and there is no other point of pop music. To define an era, bands needn't reflect the social climate, but they have to either progress from an earlier one, or be markedly different to that which went before.

A band stops being relevant when they become old, or they make records that aren't accessible to a mass of young people, or when young people stop listening to them. Older releases should only be revisted for nostalgic purposes by people who were young at the time of their release, or to trace the lineation of popular music. However, it was necessary for young bands of today to revist the early eighties, because that was the time of the last successful youth movement in white popular music (fuck-off grunge), but now we have current alternatives, embrace them!

[Larsen B]

1) Being namechecked doesn't mean you're good.

2) Knowing who someone is doesn't matter. I know who Gareth Gates is... doesn't change the fact he's utter shite.

3) Being known isn't what makes a band great.

The Banshees aren't as well known as Joy Division' date=' I'll grant you that... but neither are some amazing bands like The Paper Chase, Cat on Form... Mogwai... INTERPOL! the list goes on...

Just because they weren't as famous as the sex pistols doesn't mean they were shite. You of all people - looking at your 'listening to' list - should realise this. Knowing and caring who someone is down to the taste and ignorance of each individual on this earth, just because Pete Murphy isn't listed next to Axl Rose (who, for the record... I think is a tosser) doesn't change the fact he was amazing.

And The Velvey Underground were more known for their connection to Andy Warhol... and Lou Reed for his connection to the Velvet Underground. Doesn't mean anything.[/quote']

1),2) and 3) all say the same thing! I'm not saying that any of those things make a band good, but if a band is being namechecked a lot by new young bands it would suggest they have some culutural significance by the fact they seem very influential. And that very simple point pretty much invalidates everything you said there. Read closer next time, i never mentioned anything about an often name checked band therefore being good.

[french_disko]

Young people (and it was all young people on this thread until you showed up!) should only follow current movements' date=' because it is only current moevements that will define their generation, and there is no other point of pop music. To define an era, bands needn't reflect the social climate, but they have to either progress from an earlier one, or be markedly different to that which went before.

A band stops being relevant when they become old, or they make records that aren't accessible to a mass of young people, or when young people stop listening to them. Older releases should only be revisted for nostalgic purposes by people who were young at the time of their release, or to trace the lineation of popular music. However, it was necessary for young bands of today to revist the early eighties, because that was the time of the last successful youth movement in white popular music (fuck-off grunge), but now we have current alternatives, embrace them![/quote']

I've read this about three times now and I've come to the conclusion that it's the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read on this site - and considering some of the pish that's written here, that's quite an achievment.

I'd love to get angry at this but, quite truthfully, I'm pissing myself laughing at the everything you've written!

[Larsen B]

That's complete nonsense from start to end. Firstly' date=' who are you to say what young people should and should not listen to? I'm still in my 20's, remember, and when I was a teenager I took it upon myself to listen to not just the music of the age, but also[b'] educate myself on what had gone before. It was a case of finding music that I liked, rather than slavishly follow whichever trends were in vogue at the time.

To be fair he did say there was nothing wrong with that when he mentioned tracing the lineation of popular music.

[NARC]

However' date=' and I think this is the crux of the original argument, who is going to feel special as a fan now, when the band are old and all-but gone, they no longer are at the vanguard of a movement, and the records you listen to are over 20 years old? That is why Betamax's "essential" claim was erroneous. The only essential releases are the new and relevant[/quote']

A few points here:

I as a music fan feel modern music actually is less "relevant" to me (which, admittedly, you are yet to define). I can count on one hand the bands from the last few years that I have seen/heard that make me feel special as a fan - this is in part due to increased commercialisation and marketing. Now, it would be absolutely wrong to say you shouldn't like a band based purely on their popularity, because anyone knows that's ridiculous. However, since you are talking about feeling special, for me modern bands that are successful are carried away on such a fanfare that some of the pleasure in seeing a band rise from nothing is voided. For example, everyone must know a band that excites them but are not very well known. Thus, once they break into the major league stratosphere and are sung by the milkman on his 3.40am shift, a little part of you goes with it. It's purely egotisitic, but it's true.

I don't believe music has to have cultural significance to make it good, or to give it a meaning/purpose. I think the very fact that it is music in itself automatically gives it cultural status (except when we are talking about Staute Of Misery), because unless the band in question is exceptionally unpopular, people in societies all throughout the world can connect through it; the world is a big place of diverse people.

A band stops being relevant when they become old' date=' or they make records that aren't accessible to a mass of young people, or when young people stop listening to them. Older releases should only be revisted for nostalgic purposes by people who were young at the time of their release, or to trace the lineation of popular music. However, it was necessary for young bands of today to revist the early eighties, because that was the time of the last successful youth movement in white popular music (fuck-off grunge), but now we have current alternatives, embrace them![/quote']

I'm sorry but this is utter tripe. I agree that some bands can become irrelevant due to age. Seeing New Order at T in the Park was quite sad really, because it's painfully obvious that they are somewhat out of place nowadays. The return to playing Joy Division songs marks clearly the fact they have turned full circle; they are back to where they started, when they wrote songs that are so much more signifcant than the bollocks they write now. However, taking New Order as an admittedly lightweight example, I cannot accept that people like yourself would have the nerve to stop me listening to some of their early compositions, which satisfy your need for cultural significance and contemporary excitement, but it another era. Put simply, if bands that exist nowadays leave me devoid of feeling and ability to make me think, then I will turn to the "original", because it's where it's at its most undiluted and sincere form. Generations are defined by hindsight also; it's all too easy to say that band or this band defined a generation, but in almost every case the term has been applied after the "events", with the main protagonists acutely unaware that they are participating in the wider scheme. It is by the very opposite of what you are suggesting, by revisiting a certain period in musical history, that we can understand the musical/cultural significance of its particpants.

I hope it's clear what I'm saying here. I guess it may seem like I have a vendetta against new releases, but I can make it clear that that is not the case! I simply share an affinity with music that has happened in the past, as all sane music lovers will have. If a band's two minutes old and I like them, I like them. If a band's two hundred years and I like them, I like them. I'm afraid Ancient Mariner that your musical theories really are pretentious babble.

[Steve Temple]

Firstly, who are you to say what young people should and should not listen to? I'm still in my 20's, remember, and when I was a teenager I took it upon myself to listen to not just the music of the age, but also educate myself on what had gone before. It was a case of finding music that I liked, rather than slavishly follow whichever trends were in vogue at the time.

Hmm, didn't have you down as another lazy cynic. Pop really doesn't deserve such a hostile attitude. Take it with a pinch of salt. As I've said before, pop owes more to fashion than it does to music, and so its trends are bound to have a similar lifespan to fashion trends. This is the way it should be. Bands shouldn't hang around like a bad smell, as they serve a short term purpose, and their relevance is only for a limited period. It's possible to view the rapid turnover of trends as the necessary evolution of pop, if you choose not to be a cynic (and really, what do you have to gain from being one? You'll only become even more bitter as you enter your 30s).

The purpose of pop music is to make people dance, and to give them something to listen to that fits their mood at the time. It doesn't matter if the music they prefer to listen to was released last week, last year, or forty years ago. It's absolutely potty to suggest that the intention of the makers of pop music wish to "define an era". They just want to get laid and tour the world in a comfy bus.

I'm glad we agree it's for dancing to! There are some intellectuals in pop who do wish to define an era, but most of those who do so, do so inadvertantly, simply by virtue of them being popular

By your definition, then, bands such as The Doors, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles and the Supremes are still relevant, because I could have sworn I've been making a living these last few years by playing records by those bands in nightclubs packed with young people dancing their socks off.

When you asked me when they stopped being relevant, I thought you meant the band themselves, not their original releases. Of course you can still dance to old records, but those of who seek intellectual pleasure from pop need it to remain fresh, and need the current singles to shape their idea of modernity. The old hits that once seemed so dangerous, so electric, so current, so essential, are now terrace-anthems through over-familiarity and age. I saw this happen at TITP, with She's Lost Control sung by your everyman and woman like it was Handbags and Gladrags. It's fine for old bands to serve this purpose for the no-longer young and the no-longer cool, but the young should seek their own anthems

As for successful "movements" in white popular music we've had Madchester, Britpop, Nu-Metal as well as grunge since then, all of which were more successful in capturing the imagination of the "yoof" market than the post-new-wave era you speak about. Bands have been mining that particular narrow seam of influence for years, but it's flavour of the month now due to the success of bands such as The Killers and Franz Ferdinand. Don't kid yourself that the current wave of soundalikes constitutes any kind of significant "movement"-the law of diminishing returns is already swinging into action and the next wave of sub-Interpol jaggy edged moaners will kill off the current trend for good.

I'll give you Madchester, but Britpop, nu-metal and grunge didn't fufill their purpose and so weren't successful in my eyes. Britpop was too mainstream, grunge didn't appeal to every young person, only the manic depressives and the musos who like d-tunings, and did nu-metal really penetrate the public conscience? My parents shouldn't be able to whistle it's tunes (not that there were any), but they should have heard of it, but they haven't. Plus, the fashions of each were shit, and they didn't inspire dancing

I agree the current movement may soon die, not because of over saturation but because it has been hi-jacked by retrogressive, wannabe mainstream stars (The Killers, The Kaisers, The Bravery). We will miss it when it is gone, because it's style was sharp, it inspired dancing, and it produced some great singles. But new young bands now have something to build on for the first time in a decade

Letting a set of imaginary rules of conduct dictate your taste in music is childish and pretty sad, to be honest.

Everyone does it, I'm just the only one who is aware I do it, or the only one who admits to it. And pop music is pretty childish to be honest, which is why I'm making the most of it while I'm young

[Larsen B]

Everyone does it' date=' I'm just the only one who is aware I do it, or the only one who admits to it. [/b'] And pop music is pretty childish to be honest, which is why I'm making the most of it while I'm young

So very true.

[Steve Temple]

I'm afraid Ancient Mariner that your musical theories really are pretentious babble.

Sure, but they pass the time

[jimr]

I read this thread listening to Hangedup - Klang Klang. It was great.

Nothing else was though.

[Guest bluesxman]

Siouxsie was given a big tribute and cited as a massive influence at the Brits by the girl from Scissor Sisters when she presented them with an award. I think you will find that most if not all alternative female singers owe her some debt.

[betamax]

interesting debate

but i think people are making it more complicated (and pretentious) than it really is

i am a consumer

pop music is a product

i buy it if i like what it erm......sounds like (radical thinking!!!)

it dosent matter if its a vinyl dance illegal remix bootleg thats not on release yet or a slice of re-issue Iggy from 1975

either way if I dig the sound and its got some element of unique or original going on it becomes 'essential'

but if you buy into and follow the fashion conveyor belt theory you end up riding it (with all the other NME readers)

and at the end of said conveyor is a bucket of stinking shit

[Steve Temple]

i am a consumer

pop music is a product

i buy it if i like what it erm......sounds like (radical thinking!!!)

it dosent matter if its a vinyl dance illegal remix bootleg thats not on release yet or a slice of re-issue Iggy from 1975

either way if I dig the sound and its got some element of unique or original going on it becomes 'essential'

No-one judges a band based solely on the sound on a CD' date=' but if we did, how would we decide what was worth listening to? Most songs have a beat and a tune to endear them to us, so what distinguishes them is whether they are progressive and contemporary. How can a 25 year-old Banshees record be progressive and contemporary? Well, they were until recently because very few mainstream bands had advanced on what they did. I know you disagree, but The Futureheads, Interpol, Bloc Party, The Faint, Liars, Arcade Fire and British Sea Power have now advanced on what The Banshees [i']et al started

[NARC]

No-one judges a band based solely on the sound on a CD' date=' but if we did, how would we decide what was worth listening to? Most songs have a beat and a tune to endear them to us, so what distinguishes them is whether they are progressive and contemporary. How can a 25 year-old Banshees record be progressive and contemporary? Well, they were until recently because very few mainstream bands had advanced on what they did. I know you disagree, but The Futureheads, Interpol, Bloc Party, The Faint, Liars, Arcade Fire and British Sea Power have now advanced on what The Banshees [i']et al started

I'm afraid recordings are what the majority of people use to judge a band, simply because the quantity and location of live performances is very restricted.

I don't think it's a case of advancement in terms of improvement, because the bands you have listed, with a couple of exceptions, in my opinion, have not done so, neither in lyrical or musical terms. If you mean they have become more accessible for a modern audience, and sound less dated, then you are correct.

[Steve Temple]

I'm afraid recordings are what the majority of people use to judge a band' date=' simply because the quantity and location of live performances is very restricted.

I don't think it's a case of advancement in terms of improvement, because the bands you have listed, with a couple of exceptions, in my opinion, have not done so, neither in lyrical or musical terms. If you mean they have become more accessible for a modern audience, and sound less dated, then you are correct.[/quote']

I'm not talking about the sound a band makes either on record or live, but their image, style, their name, artwork, pronounciations, accents, locale etc. EVERYONE judges a band by these factors, but I'm the only one who admits to it

Again, what would constitute improvement? The alternative hits of our era have tunes and beats which are just as strong, so they can only improve by displaying new and modern ideas of song structures, recording techniques, lyrical forms and themes, and, yes, fashions

[betamax]

No-one judges a band based solely on the sound on a CD' date=' but if we did, how would we decide what was worth listening to? Most songs have a beat and a tune to endear them to us, so what distinguishes them is whether they are progressive and contemporary. How can a 25 year-old Banshees record be progressive and contemporary? Well, they were until recently because very few mainstream bands had advanced on what they did. I know you disagree, but The Futureheads, Interpol, Bloc Party, The Faint, Liars, Arcade Fire and British Sea Power have now advanced on what The Banshees [i']et al started

Initially I always judge a band on what it sounds like. Pretty fundamental really. Anyone who judges a band on any thing else initially, is a sad victim of marketing. A marketing puppet. A sheep. A dumb fuck.

After the music, then other factors maybe can help shape or influence your impression of a band, such as presentation, style attitute etc. But thats only icing the cake.

A 25 year old Banshees record in theory should never been seen as progressive or contemporary. But it should be recognised for how progressive it was at the time. A million times more progresseive than all of the bands your name dropping, given they are only one step above a tribute act. They are all actually totally regressive in the sense that they are badly apeing an old style, not advancing it, but actually doing a safe watered down version for mass consumption. They have good business sense it a fact and will sell shit loads of product so long as the media backs the latest trend, but they simply have no original ideas.

Theres plenty of new bands who still manage to cut their own groove, so these fucking monkeys are the worse kind of rip off imo.

You missed out The Bravery. Ive never actually seen a worse live band.

Also, the fact we are still talking about the Banshees now says it all. Who will give a fuck about Interpol in 2030??? i cant imagine some future thread in 25 years from now debating forgotten copy bands from 2005 that were top shop fashionable for 3 months

[NARC]

I'm not talking about the sound a band makes either on record or live' date=' but their image, style, their name, artwork, pronounciations, accents, locale etc. EVERYONE judges a band by these factors, but I'm the only one who admits to it

[/quote']

These are factors you pick up after hearing a band. You are one person who is concerned about "the music they play on the radio". If so, you cannot judge what you are hearing on the above factors, except name and pronunciation, whilst doing so. I freely admit going to a concert should be a "show" , where style etc is a huge part of the whole experience, but if I don't like their music, then I don't like them; the factors you've listed above cannot compensate for poor music. It would be better for you to say I like X or Y's style and accent, rather than saying you like them as a whole. If not, then you'd be better going to a noiseless fashion show.

[betamax]

Again' date=' what would constitute improvement? The alternative hits of our era have tunes and beats which are just as strong, so they can only improve by displaying new and modern ideas of song structures, recording techniques, lyrical forms and themes, and, yes, [/quote']

ok ill analyse the above

''new and modern ideas of song structures'' > they have simply made the arrangements more radio freindly with more repeat hook lines and repeat choruses - how is that progressive, its conservative. Its almost eurovision.

''recording techniques'' > are now digital, faster and cheaper and more reliant on digital correction of poor performance. They sound much worse. Try playing the 12 inch of To Hell with Poverty by GOF and then check out a puny 12 inch by The Rapture. The difference in power and energy is massive. Cheap recording in 2005 has put the quality down. Fact. Read any studio magazine from the the last 20 years for masses of articles on the subject. Most decent studios are now shutdown due to low investment by record labels. The ones left are run like cost-cutter or primark.

''lyrical forms and themes'' > the essence of a good lyric its its originality, to make you belive the singer really means whats he/she is saying, whatever that is. It has to be convincing. Singing a load of loosly assembled cliches and buzzwords from the 1980s isnt good song writing IMO.

''fashions'' > following them is for sheep and top shop. Making them is the hard part and the part to be admired. Example: Joy Division created a fashion. Cool. Interpol are pathetic wee sheep who should be playing at Butlins. Uncool.

To be honest the only new fashions are coming out of the urban and dance scenes imo. Rock is stuck in a regressive loop.

[NARC]

Interpol take minniscule inspiration from Joy Division. They don't even look similar, nor sound similar.

[betamax]

Interpol take minniscule inspiration from Joy Division. They don't even look similar' date=' nor sound similar.[/quote']