|
Post by guitarista95 on Dec 12, 2010 23:51:52 GMT -5
Anyone think that the reason they weren't as famous in the US was because, for the 70's, they were too rebellious?
For girls to play and sing rock n roll then was something else. Then they sang about sex and drugs from a personal view. That was extreme and extremes tend to put some people off.
Im not saying that they shouldnt have done what they did. Its the reason girls can do that now and its ok. But it might have led to some people just considering their image and not the music. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by janehumen on Dec 13, 2010 1:30:44 GMT -5
I think that was definitely a factor. Japan and other places where they were popular were a little more open minded.
Which sucks, to say the least. I also feel that they would have been together for a lot longer in ideal circumstances - if there was less b.s. to deal with and the focus could have been more on the music.
|
|
|
Post by jettigre on Dec 13, 2010 2:58:57 GMT -5
It's because they are girls. If it would have been men with big hair and sweaty balls they would have been huge. But a women playing sweaty rock n roll and having a vagina ? It was very unheard of except for a few that were also being bashed. Women in rock n roll was unheard of except for a few that manage to succeed and break the barrier which was unheard of in the 70's. Like, Joan Jett says they felt threaten cause they were Women playing guitar and they owned their sexuality.
The Runaways had Balls - like Joan Jett said but their's were higher up than Mens !!!!
|
|
|
Post by joanjettfreak on Dec 13, 2010 6:37:06 GMT -5
totally agree with these sentiments, the US music scene was so conservative back in the 70's [still is, i suppose] all those a*******s like rush and journey called the shots with their godawful AOR, the Runaways were just too much for them and yes, the sexism of those scumbags was massive, they couldn't handle it,unfortunately sexism is still a huge problem, especially with a lot of s***s who should know better,p***y to the wood,f*** that guitar!
|
|
|
Post by guitarista95 on Dec 13, 2010 16:44:32 GMT -5
Glad to see these other points. Even after the runaways it was still sorta like that. I like the "hair metal" bands but if any of them had a girl, let alone all girls, in them I've yet to hear about it. Even today many times I've seen that the women that have songs topping the chart are mostly just sex symbols.
Not that the Runaways werent but they were talented above that.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Dec 13, 2010 17:37:47 GMT -5
They got such BAD PRESS. Almost any mention in Creem Magazine (with the exception of the review of the first album) was slanderous. Every photo caption, article, blurb, all awful and MEAN. And the two big music magazines were Creem and Circus. When you get one magazine (whose market was teen-young 20s) consistently bashing, people are unfortunately going to jump on board. That couldn't have helped. Creem refused to take them seriously as musicians. It's so corrupt, even if the others may not have been fully developed as artists yet, at least give kudos to Lita, she was shredding even back then. The writing was pretty awesome, so many positive attributes. But fear and hatred won over fact. Misogynist for sure. And what's funny, I remember one article (I'm pretty sure in the Creem "Sex in Rock and Roll" issue, either October or November of '76) written by Lisa Robinson, a woman, and she still bashed what they wore, and the group in general. A world truly not ready.
|
|
|
Post by guitarista95 on Dec 13, 2010 18:23:11 GMT -5
I agree there was bad press, like the crawdaddy article and one I found yesterday in the runaways- 1976 thread people magazine. Saying that they were either "a gimmick or a master plot of Kim Fowley" And it really tries to downplay them and the way they were:
"The ersatz rebels call home at least twice a week, drink nothing harder than Dr Pepper, and the only pills they pop are multivitamins. They stay close to their male road crew, who double as chaperons and bodyguards to bounce boy groupies from dressing rooms and hotel corridors." I dont know who told them that but Ive seen Edgeplay and that was definately not the case, although the phone thing might have been true.
|
|
|
Post by fallspeed on Dec 13, 2010 20:55:39 GMT -5
There's no doubt the US market wasn't ready for a tough girl act - it probably still isn't. How popular were Girlschool or L7 here?
But I'm surprised they were so popular in Japan - a more socially conservative country with more traditional attitudes about women. We all know the Japanese are into weird porn, so maybe that explains them going crazy over Cherie in the corset?
I still think if Fowley had had the brains to get them on The Midnight Special or Kirschner's Rock Concert, they would have found a TV audience. Or if he had filmed some of their US concerts, or shown the Japan videos in a US theater. Or released the Live in Japan album here. Fowley deserves a lot of the blame.
|
|
|
Post by dagtoking1 on Dec 14, 2010 8:00:54 GMT -5
I agree that it was because they were girls. You have to remember it was a different time and the Runaways were ground breaking. Some people can't deal with change.
|
|
|
Post by rknron on Dec 14, 2010 13:36:17 GMT -5
gra95... no, it wasn't because they were rebellious.... They were doomed from the beginning because they had very little in common. All they had was the music. As they matured and their musical tastes changed they split apart. Fowley helped to speed the process along by originally selling the show as Jailbait Rock to a mostly male audience. That strategy was doomed once they hit eighteen. They were named The Runaways, even ' tho none of them were. The audiences were mostly male at first, then as they became more popular it was about an even mix until news of some band members alternative sexual preferences came out near the end, then it went the other way. Critics didn't kill the band. They did themselves in.
|
|
|
Post by wilkinss77 on Dec 14, 2010 18:40:54 GMT -5
gra95... no, it wasn't because they were rebellious.... They were doomed from the beginning because they had very little in common. All they had was the music. As they matured and their musical tastes changed they split apart. Fowley helped to speed the process along by originally selling the show as Jailbait Rock to a mostly male audience. That strategy was doomed once they hit eighteen. They were named The Runaways, even ' tho none of them were. The audiences were mostly male at first, then as they became more popular it was about an even mix until news of some band members alternative sexual preferences came out near the end, then it went the other way. Critics didn't kill the band. They did themselves in. critics did have a big hand in it, though- by slagging the band, they put people off giving them a listen- you'd be surprised how many people go on the word of film/theatre/music critics rather than see/hear for themselves! this in turn robbed them of the chance to become more popular. if they HAD become more popular, they may have found a way to put their differences tp one side to keep the band alive, like many other bands do.
|
|
|
Post by rknron on Dec 18, 2010 0:17:53 GMT -5
maybe in the UK, not many lemmings here. I can't think of one person I know (in the US), that didn't go to a rock concert , cuz some critic said the band sucked. "Rock critics" were laughed at in the 60's and 70's in the US.
|
|
|
Post by jettford on Dec 18, 2010 3:08:56 GMT -5
I don't know, Ron...There was such an element of their image being ruined, what they stood for (or what they didn't stand for). The mags refused to take them seriously. Not necessarily giving them bad reviews, but lampooning them.
|
|
|
Post by wilkinss77 on Dec 18, 2010 10:44:57 GMT -5
maybe in the UK, not many lemmings here. I can't think of one person I know (in the US), that didn't go to a rock concert , cuz some critic said the band sucked. "Rock critics" were laughed at in the 60's and 70's in the US. many broadway plays have closed because of negative reviews- over here, that happens too- but it also happens with movies, concerts & records.
|
|
rob59
New Member
Posts: 2
|
Post by rob59 on Jan 3, 2011 10:43:51 GMT -5
As a UK rock fan the same age as the band, I remember the tone of the British music press coverage. Nothing explicit about girls not being able to play, but plenty suspicion of Kim Fowley, and a belief that the Runaways were "not real" but just a creation of the music industry/Kim Fowley. At the time this was the ultimate crime, and plenty artists careers were ruined by such suspicions. Its probably true though that their being all girls increased the suspicion.
The reason they were big in Japan is that all pop music in Japan is created by record companies and producers and Japanese artists are basically puppets. Then and now. So the Runaways fitted really well into the Japanese commercial music scene. They were just the latest Idols presented to Japanese teens to adore and consume. The fact that they were actually real musicians and not just total puppets actually made them seem edgy in Japan, which increased their appeal.
They were definitely not too rebellious. Its just that people did not believe it was for real.
America in particular was incredibly snobbish about rock not being contaminated by pop. Totally different now. But thats why glam rock, which was pop/rock crossover, failed to take off in the US, and only got played in places like Rodney's and the Starwood where Cherie and Joan hung out. The Runaways were a glam rock band in a country that never liked glam rock, and after glam rock was really over elsewhere. Under Joan, they then went into UK punk, but that never took off in the US mainstream until Green Day started to turn out their corporate McPunk. (I like Green Day,btw).
Anyway that's my almost 52 year old's take on it.
|
|