Children's shows you actually enjoyed

[Section 15]

Music, fashion, and performance has gone hand in hand in hand forever. Do you discount the Beatles because they had their mop-tops, The Ramones for their even longer mop-tops? How about Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and Soundgarden for their shared preference for jeans and flannel?

I don't recall David Bowie being considered as a leader of a "hair band", but he sure had the look in the 70s. Same with Queen.

I think you may be confusing appearance and content. The Beatles never made their look the focus of their music. But metal bands trade on their appearance as part of their art. That's OK per se, but it doesn't makes their music any better. If you are into heavy style and theatrics (fireworks, lighting, etc) as part of your performance, then I have to ask why don't you have confidence in your music?

BTW: I was never was into David Bowie, and Queen did a great soundtrack for Flash Gorden, but otherwise was unnoticed by me. Likewise the other groups you mention. I will wear my dinosaur badge with honor.

[ClemmonsDevil]

I think you may be confusing appearance and content. The Beatles never made their look the focus of their music. But metal bands trade on their appearance as part of their art. That's OK per se, but it doesn't makes their music any better. If you are into heavy style and theatrics (fireworks, lighting, etc) as part of your performance, then I have to ask why don't you have confidence in your music?

BTW: I was never was into David Bowie, and Queen did a great soundtrack for Flash Gorden, but otherwise was unnoticed by me. Likewise the other groups you mention. I will wear my dinosaur badge with honor.

Loathe hair bands and classic rock. I'm waaaaaay less cool than you. Get off my street corner!

[Section 15]

Loathe hair bands and classic rock. I'm waaaaaay less cool than you. Get off my street corner!

And you get off my lawn!!!

[ClemmonsDevil]

And you get off my lawn!!!

Hahaha! Good work!

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I think you may be confusing appearance and content. The Beatles never made their look the focus of their music. But metal bands trade on their appearance as part of their art. That's OK per se, but it doesn't makes their music any better. If you are into heavy style and theatrics (fireworks, lighting, etc) as part of your performance, then I have to ask why don't you have confidence in your music?

BTW: I was never was into David Bowie, and Queen did a great soundtrack for Flash Gorden, but otherwise was unnoticed by me. Likewise the other groups you mention. I will wear my dinosaur badge with honor.

Only on DBR does a thread about Children's TV shows evolve into a discussion of heavy metal hair bands!

I'm not a metal fan. I am a child of the grunge era (it was when I was in HS and early college) but was not a fan, other than Pearl Jam - I was very happy about the move to more upbeat music, though I do still have a closet full of flannels.

Though grunge did give us some great Beavis and Butthead episodes, so there is that. And Beavis and Butthead definitely was not a children's show, though I quote it very frequently so my children know more than they should about it - my wife rolls her eyes when my 3rd grader says to her "we don't have to eat your stinking tacos!"

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Honest answer: The operative phrase is "metal band." Bunch of cosplaying posers. In the same category as "hair band." If you have something to say (or play) you don't need to dress up and pretend. See "Spinal Tap" It's good fun, I guess, but I have a hard time taking it seriously.

On the other hand, I used to have the same attitude about ZZ Top. The gimmicks got in the way. It took me time to realize that the Gibbons were really accomplished blues guitarists. Now, I can appreciate their music without having to remember their music videos from the 80s.

So, maybe metal bands are somehow similar. Still it has been a few years now and it still hasn't happened, so I'm not holding my breath.

Yikes.

I have a friend you should talk to. He is a HUGE music buff - everything from indie bands to The Who to Nina Simone - and he could talk your ear off about the amazing musicality of Iron Maiden. Granted, definitely not my cup of tea, but he has impressed upon me the technicality of their music and the parallels to jazz music and chord progressions and tons of other things I have very little understanding of.

Don't write something off as junk just because it isn't your favorite.

Also, I would push back on your statement regarding "dressing up and playing pretend." Yes, the film "Amadeus" was an exaggeration, but flamboyant musicians with great talent was a thing LONG before Elton John.

[chadlee989]

Did someone say something about children tv shows?

[camion]

Did someone say something about children tv shows?

Now now, don't lojack the thread back to the original topic.

[aimo]

I don't recall David Bowie being considered as a leader of a "hair band", but he sure had the look in the 70s. Same with Queen.

I think Bowie and Queen were more Glam Rock. Whatever that is!

[ClemmonsDevil]

Since I started the thread it is only right that it veers to other topics. I am the king of derailing threads. Also turkey sucks.

[wilson]

Honest answer: The operative phrase is "metal band." Bunch of cosplaying posers. In the same category as "hair band." If you have something to say (or play) you don't need to dress up and pretend. See "Spinal Tap" It's good fun, I guess, but I have a hard time taking it seriously.

On the other hand, I used to have the same attitude about ZZ Top. The gimmicks got in the way. It took me time to realize that the Gibbons were really accomplished blues guitarists. Now, I can appreciate their music without having to remember their music videos from the 80s.

So, maybe metal bands are somehow similar. Still it has been a few years now and it still hasn't happened, so I'm not holding my breath.

Again, I have to wonder if you're serious. Image has been an inextricable part of all genres of popular music throughout its existence. Just because you don't like or get it doesn't render it invalid.
Anything further I could say here would be uncharitable, to say the least.

[wilson]

...metal bands trade on their appearance as part of their art. That's OK per se, but it doesn't makes their music any better. If you are into heavy style and theatrics (fireworks, lighting, etc) as part of your performance, then I have to ask why don't you have confidence in your music?

...says the guy who had never heard of Iron Maiden.
Maybe don't pontificate about things that you have yourself admitted you know nothing about.

[ClemmonsDevil]

...says the guy who had never heard of Iron Maiden.
Maybe don't pontificate about things you have yourself admitted that you know nothing about.

I am not an Iron Maiden fan either. But I do always assume y'all know more about rock music than I do. Mostly because y'all know more about rock music than I do.

[Section 15]

Again, I have to wonder if you're serious. Image has been an inextricable part of all genres of popular music throughout its existence. Just because you don't like or get it doesn't render it invalid.
Anything further I could say here would be uncharitable, to say the least.

Obviously we're talking past each other. It happens. I'll try to be more clear - One can affect an "image" without that image being part of the art. One test of that would be how the creation of the art determines your experience of it. I would say this cuts across all genres, not just music. For example, does the manner in which a person creates a painting change your experience of it? Even Jackson Pollock's action paintings are frozen in time for the viewer. Knowing how he worked is interesting, but in the end we are left with a static object.

In the case of performative music, are the costumes, the dance steps, the lighting effects, and so forth necessary for you to enjoy the music? If so, why and what does that mean for you? I would argue that appreciating Elton John's music (to use an example from another post) doesn't require watching him perform, though it might be a nice addition. Does anyone really know how Mozart might have vamped for his audience? Yet we enjoy his music without experiencing that.

The question, the answer to which I agree is a personal one, is do you need non-musical accessories in front of you in order to appreciate certain music? I'm saying that I don't in most (all?) cases. Disagreeing with this POV is not a value judgement, but it is a matter of personal taste.

[wilson]

Obviously we're talking past each other.

No, we really aren't. You noted that you had never heard of Iron Maiden, one of the fingers-on-one-hand greatest metal artists of all time, then proceeded to make sweeping declarations about what "metal artists do." You were making broad statements about something that very clearly, you know effectively nothing about.

In the case of performative music, are the costumes, the dance steps, the lighting effects, and so forth necessary for you to enjoy the music? If so, why and what does that mean for you? I would argue that appreciating Elton John's music (to use an example from another post) doesn't require watching him perform, though it might be a nice addition. Does anyone really know how Mozart might have vamped for his audience? Yet we enjoy his music without experiencing that.

Once again...seriously? You're essentially asking here, "Does the quality/nature of a live performance affect one's assessment of a performer? In a word, ummmm...yes. The question itself was so circular as to be useless. And while we're at it, I haven't even had the chance to see Iron Maiden live yet, so yes, I quite enjoy their music entirely absent the live performance. Furthermore, it's far more technically adept and complex than you, the person who had never heard of them until yesterday, seems to believe.
But to say that the mounting of live shows shouldn't be part of evaluating an artist? The Rolling Stones, Prince, Garth Brooks, Wilco, Brandi Carlile, good grief...I could go on for literal days about artists of all stripes who would (rightly) point out the absurdity of that statement.
Have you ever been to a concert? If you discount their value as part of enjoying a musician's work, then why do you bother?

[Kdogg]

Honest answer: The operative phrase is "metal band." Bunch of cosplaying posers. In the same category as "hair band." If you have something to say (or play) you don't need to dress up and pretend. See "Spinal Tap" It's good fun, I guess, but I have a hard time taking it seriously.

So, maybe metal bands are somehow similar. Still it has been a few years now and it still hasn't happened, so I'm not holding my breath.

You are using some pretty big strokes here to paint metal bands. It runs the spectrum from Gwar to Motörhead.

[OldPhiKap]

If Elvis’ music was good, why did he have to shake his hips?

If James Brown’s music was any good, why did he have to dance?

Showmanship is part of entertainment.

[cato]

If Elvis’ music was good, why did he have to shake his hips?

If James Brown’s music was any good, why did he have to dance?

Showmanship is part of entertainment.

I went to a decent amount of shows in my late teens/early twenties. Earlier tastes leaned toward Dead/Phish/Allman Bros, then more Pearl Jam/DMB/Gov’t Mule and a rave interregnum.

Tom Petty in my late 20s was an eye-opener. I knew going in that he had a bunch of songs I liked, although it was not until he played hit after hit that I hadn’t listened to in years that I realized just how many great songs he and the Heartbreakers had given us over the years.

But I didn’t realize how great a performer he was. He cared about putting on a great show and he nailed it.

Years later I saw Van Halen in the Staples Center, and while I don’t love their music, they also put on a great show.

Since this is a thread about kids’ TV shows, and kids’ shows often include dogs and pigs, I present Temple of the Dog, performing War Pig by Black Sabbath.

As your attorney, I recommend you (everyone, not just OPK) enjoy this performance: https://youtu.be/O-q5ksqQBuk

ETA: Come so see Chris Cornell, but stay to see Mike McCready shread at the climax.

[CameronBornAndBred]

The ones we watched and enjoyed as a family as my son grew up don't seem to be on anyone else's list. But here they are:

Adventures of Pete and Pete

To keep this thread on track, Iggy Pop made appearances on that show.

[OldPhiKap]

Tim Finn (Crowded House) on the Wiggles:



I really enjoyed the Wiggles because it was kid’s music that was not just crap.