[Savage Clone]

I was there, Rob.
If you were in a band that put ANY effort into your style at that time (I'm talking Mpls in the mid to late 80s, when it was the epicentre of Flannel Rock), you got all kinds of crap and were called a "poseur" or a "pussy."
The "unfashion" of the day was a fashion trend, whether it was born of "utility" or not.
This rule also seemed to apply if your band had any keyboard in the lineup that was not a Farfisa. Farfisas were OK for some reason.

I point you in the direction of macho sculptors who wear Carhartts and drive pickup trucks. Utility becomes fashion all the time.

[sonicl]

Actually, the Mike Watt / flannel shirts thing was to do with his worshipping of John Fogerty.

http://www.talkbass.com/forum/archiv...p/t-61360.html

[Rob Instigator]

being anti-fashion is NOT a fashion.
that is the same warped logic that religious believers use against athiests. They say that not believing in a god is as much a religion as believing in a god, which is idiotic.

[porkmarras]

Everyone has some fashion in them,like it or not.I take care of destroying my trainers so that they look more appealing to my eye.I'm a superficial fucker like that but then again i'm not.Being into fashion and looking after the way you look doesn't always make you an idiot.

[Savage Clone]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

being anti-fashion is NOT a fashion.
that is the same warped logic that religious believers use against athiests. They say that not believing in a god is as much a religion as believing in a god, which is idiotic.

But they were all "anti-fashion" looking in exactly the same way!
Flannel shirts, thermal underwear under shorts or peeking through holes in jeans, ski hats, etc etc.

It was the style at the time, and the style was hip dishevelment.

[Pookie]

I think being ANTI fashion is a form of fashion, possibly not if you're afashion, if such a term exists.

To be actively anti-fashion means you are making a conscious decision about how you look.

And why did Minutemen have the SAME look as each other? And Minor Threat? They definitely had a LOOK.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

being anti-fashion is NOT a fashion.
that is the same warped logic that religious believers use against athiests. They say that not believing in a god is as much a religion as believing in a god, which is idiotic.

Fashion is a broad term. It doesn't merely mean that which is contrived, that which is considered. It means that which you wear. 'anti-fashion' is the mis-nomer, not the other way round. How can you oppose something without the something being there to oppose?

[porkmarras]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving pookie a Trinny and Susannah makeover.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

haydensache, you are like 12 years old. you weren't THERE so shut up. they wore what they wore because it is COLD in northwest USA. they wore flannel becauise the cold wet air chills you and flannels are perfect for it. stop showing your deep deep deep ignorance. I mean DEEP ignorance. punk bands wore what they owned, an to this day wear what they own and regularly wear anyway. that is part of the appeal of punk, that the guys on stage are JUST LIKE US, regular people who get up and rock, not dudes that have to put on some glam show like Bowie or prog rock or metalheads. (this excludes what I call Fashion Punks that still try to look like they live in 1977 London)

not everyone has a fashion. that is a stupid statement. the butthole surfers had no fashion. minor threat had no fashion. sonic youth has never had a "fashion", which does NOT mean Kim does not dress sytlish. They wear what they wear, and others copy them to become a fashion, you dig?

minutemen had no FASHION. you ask Mike Watt why he wore flannels and he will tell you exactly why, they are rugged, comfortable, and have two pockets with flaps so he can carry hi shit without it spilling out (he has said this many times).

ignorance is a slippery slope my friend.

ohh my god, you are like tape that repeats all the bullshit rock writers have said for the last thrity years...i mean, without a single original thought.

and what do you call all those fashion shows, spreads and ads kim has done for high class designers.

and by the way, dinosaur jr are from western massachusetts, that's like the opposite coast as shitvana and dumbhoney.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

being anti-fashion is NOT a fashion.
that is the same warped logic that religious believers use against athiests. They say that not believing in a god is as much a religion as believing in a god, which is idiotic.

wow, keep showing your ignorance.

[Rob Instigator]

where did I say Dinosaur was from seattle?
nowhere. stop combining different posts.


I said kim was stylish. the fashion shows and ads and all that she does are separate from the band sonic youth.

[Rob Instigator]

anti-fashion is not about opposing the fashion trends. it is about ignoring fashion as a whole.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

anti-fashion is not about opposing the fashion trends. it is about ignoring fashion as a whole.

But that's like saying you ignore musical theory. A lot of people do. It doesn't stop the entireity of rock music that I've heard being reducible to, essentially, fifths. Just because you ignore it doesn't mean you're not part of it.

[Everyneurotic]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

only the "followers" try to look a certain way. nirvana, mudhoney, Melvins, dinosaur, etc, all used to wear on stage what they happene dto be wearing that day...

and

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

...they wore what they wore because it is COLD in northwest USA. they wore flannel becauise the cold wet air chills you and flannels are perfect for it...

of course you were referring to the aforementioned bands, or will you plea to rhethoric and sentence construction as your weapon for debate (you know "i never said dino specifically")

not to mention that the minutemen are from california, that would be a very cheap thing to mention.

[Rob Instigator]

that is very true Glice. But the difference between a fashion conscious band, such as the Killers for example, and a band like TV on The Radio, who individually have their own style, but it is not a thought-out whole-band endeavor to look a certain way, is what I thought this thread was about.

[Everyneurotic]

hey, can someone remember grunge fashion? how about designer flannel shirts?

[porkmarras]

Get them!Get them!Eat me!Eat me!

 

[golden child]

i live in the northwest and its not THAT cold, much colder on the east coast.

anyway, they are defiantly about wearing whatever they were wearing and being "normal" and just like the kids in the audience, but its ignorant to say that they didnt make a concious desicion to look "normal", and "pure". whether its because there lazy, or they are trying to look cool, it still takes a concious effort.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

that is very true Glice. But the difference between a fashion conscious band, such as the Killers for example, and a band like TV on The Radio, who individually have their own style, but it is not a thought-out whole-band endeavor to look a certain way, is what I thought this thread was about.

You've just made the point that everyone's been arguing with you about. It's not a question of whether the fashion is contrived, which is a moot point. It's a question of whether their fashion, whether contrived or otherwise, is a good one. For instance, Nirvana looked cool. They had cool fashion (for the time, a bit dated now). It was uncontrived, but it was still a fashion. The Nation of Ulysses or The Bad Seeds look the shit. It is contrived. Some bands have contrived fashion and look shit (The Stereophonics' third album makeover). Some bands have un-contrived, or contrived to be un-contrived, fashion, and look shit (Nickelback).

[screamingskull]

Originally Posted by ploesj

 

who are they?