The Daily Roxette discussions forum has been closed. The forum is only available as a read-only archive.
The Simpson, Roxette and the "Theory of Evolution"
17 replies
Santi said on January 25, 2003 12:59:
In the last 12 years we’ve have in our lives our Roxette’s on the radio, & our Simpsons on TV :D
They were both so successful in the beginning of the 90’s, it’s incredible they’re both still alive after so much time.
But there’s a difference between them. While The Simpsons are still alive and kicking and more popular than ever, Roxette is not so popular anymore.
And my theory is that the Simpsons have never changed, and that’s the secret of their success. Maggie is still a baby, Bart is still an 8 year old juvenile scam, Homer is still... euh... Homer (:D) and they never grow up. Matt Groening knows in what the Simpsons are the best and keeps them being the same.
But Roxette, they always think they have to change. They were the best in “synth-guitar pure pop” but they feel the need of changing. Why is this if they were so successful and we all liked so much them? Why musicians believe they have to change? Why people that keeps on telling me bands have to “develop” at the same time tell me Lisa Simpson has to be a kid for the rest of her life?
I think Roxette should keep on doing what they’re best at.
LoneGunman said on January 25, 2003 17:31:
Bravo Santi... I agree 100% !! :)
All the best
LoneGunman
PS: Homer is great... duh !
Jud (moderator) said on January 25, 2003 17:51:
well the difference also is that the simpsons are a cartoon, and Per and Marie are real people who *do* change, as any of us...
Santi said on January 25, 2003 19:48:
But Matt Groening (the artist, and a great artist in my humble opinion) is a real person. I’m just comparing Roxette proyect with The Simpsons Cartoon... Then Futurama could be Gyllene Tider :D
coyboyusa said on January 25, 2003 19:57:
music is alot different than tv..and the simpsons succeeded in bringing in an adult audience
Alfonsette said on January 25, 2003 23:29:
I don’t agree!
Music itself changes everytime... do you think they should have done in the 90’s something like “Look sharp!” instead of “Joyride” or “CBB”?
I really like them changing the style
It’s nice hearing them with songs like “What’s she like?”, “I’m sorry”, “Stars”, “Try”... all of them very different.
but... I do agree with you that why a band should be better if they “evoulte”?
maybe that’s a way to sell bad UK rock bands, saying that the shit they do is something “new”, but that’s not Roxette’s case
Mfan28179-Jason said on January 26, 2003 04:52:
But there are also many examples of acts (among other things) who DO NOT change and eventually fall.
Ferdan said on January 26, 2003 05:50:
I don’t agree santi...
the difference is that The Simpsons never lost their production standars and quality....... and in my opinion Roxette did in Baladas en Español and HAND....
Also Roxette took too much time between “real” albums... people and media forget fast...
This is just one of hundreds of theories i thought (but not one of my favourites)
Roxette has never been taken as a serious band from the critics point of view and some other people’s, they used to think about Rox like some kind of hybrid between a prefab and a real band.
In the times of CBB that kind of thinking was begining to dissapear in some aspects, i think they had a chance to become one of those really respected bands... those kind of bands that are allways there.... that might not release pure hit albums but that keep their standars allways high... or keep releasing new material allways.
Ok, maybe those days after CBB weren’t helping (relationship between Per and Marie if i remember well), but i think if they had released one more “real” album after CBB the history would have been really different....
that didn’t happen, well ok... they released a GH.... yeh it was ok....
but then Baladas en Español, I have no words for that work... i can’t believe Per let his lyrics become crap because of a stupid person that has zero writing skills (and translating skills), I have to think Per never asked someone else to give him some translations back from the spanish versions to review himself the spanish lyrics... and i wanna think that G.E. lied to Per when he read the spanish lyrics to him!! cos otherwise i wouldn’t know where Per had his mind. Then came HAND and we know the rest...
Anyway... I´m not specially talking about success...
baio said on January 26, 2003 07:17:
Simpsons have change,
in the begining Bart was real bad, but now, he is not, and Homer was just stupid, now, he is more stupid and bad.
Salvation7-20-7 said on January 26, 2003 08:37:
Although this is an interesting analogy, I think that I have to say that it is not all that correct. I love both the Simspons and Roxette, having grown up with both of them, but comparing the two just doesn’t work.
It was mentioned that the Simpsons is a cartoon, while Roxette is real, and therefore, Roxette has to change. One thing that must always be faced is that one must change in order to grow. If you stagnate (SP??) for too long, it would appear to fans that you were trying to hold onto your glory days, refusing to see the light, and eventually, the music would be old. People would be tired of hearing it.
With the Simpsons, they are a cartoon. A cartoon that doesn’t feel the effects of time, and one rare exception to the rule that things must change (although they have had their fair share of changing since their inception on the Tracy Ulman Show).
I, for one, applaud Roxette for expanding their horizons. As each of their albumns has something special in them, and should be cherished. We should be thankful that they are still together, buy their albumns to support our favorite artists, and stop complaining.
I mean, honestly, I have never heard of fans who have griped at their idols as much as some people have on this message board.
Anyhoo, I’ll get off the soapbox and pass it on.
Cheers,
Salvation7-20-7
Santi said on January 26, 2003 12:56:
Well, comparisons and proofs of hypothesis have to be made to get results.
Anyway I still think it’s a good comparison, and if you don’t like it because it’s a cartoon, you can just test it with some other bands. Take the most long living and successful band (probably ever). The Rolling Stones. They’re playing the same song since... the 60’s! They stay true to themselves, they never back down and in fact we don’t expect nothing else from them, we just like what it is and that’s all.
Ok, Roxette are not the Rolling Stones. I KNOW. But it’s a good example that not changing you can be successful.
Anyway, despite all the critizism I got I just wanted to say 2 more things by now:
- If any of the readers knows something about biology and real Theory of Evolution, should know that evolution is based on mutation, that is a random change produced many times in organisms’s DNA. Most mutations (let’s say 99,99%) lead to mistakes that do nothing, create problems, create big problems or even the death of organisms. Some of them (let’s say 0,01%) lead to a benefit that makes that organism more successful than the rest and takes a comparative advantage. The organism fits best and is able to reproduce better then it leads to EVOLUTION (that is a positive mutation).
Apply this to music, or arts. Taking into account the mutations are not random, but pretty well studied and trying to follow the trends (trend = “environment”), the failure rate I would say it drops till... let’s say 65%. So to evolve is really hard, and the band just mutates (NOTHING can ever evolves by itself, because it depends also on the ENVIRONMENT!). So maybe it’s better to stay doing your thing and be good in your environment (your fans), and forget getting a broader audience, because the chance of failure is very high and it could happen that you’re not successful anymore in your own environment.
- I think the approach you get to Roxette thing is not the correct (or at least not the approach I had when thinking about this). Roxette is not a person that must evolve. Roxette is a project, it’s a band, just like The Simpsons is a project, a cartoon. The best critizism to the hypothesis so far is that of Coyboy in my opinion. It’s true it’s not the same market and that Simpsons is an adult directed series, that Roxette were for teenagers and they can’t stop getting old because they’re not drawn. But cool music is cool music till the end, and Rock and roll never dies. :D
It would be not the same in a career of Per Gessle or Marie Fredrisksson solo (because they’re people), but they’re confusing people with “so many Roxette’s” (To quote PeterGm on the comment’s to the last news). What is Roxette all about? If they don’t want to stay the same it would be even better to cancel Roxette and get another name (just an opinion).
And sorry for such a long post :D
gyllene_tjej said on January 26, 2003 15:17:
anyway, we had a huge Simpsons poster over the bed :)))) Now it has moved to the bathroom :D
I think Roxette should change as it is a part of evolving as a real artist. And if the charts don’t buy it, i don’t care anymore. i mean, I will always love Per and Marie, so no worries ;)
wendy said on January 26, 2003 20:35:
Why can’t he agree??? :o
everyone has an own opinion,isn’t it??? or are you CONFUSED?????
Ferdan said on January 26, 2003 23:04:
Nope.. i´m not against “evolution”... i´m against the loss of quality in Baladas and stuff
i said they lost “success” (i don’t wanna call it succes, maybe “recognition”) cos they didn’t release material often... it has nothing to do with changing or not...
look at madonna.... each of her albums seems to be made by a different person... and she never lost recognition.
tinytim said on January 29, 2003 21:02:
Agree about P&M, but I guess it’s something about commercial pressure...they shouldn’t stay 3 years sleeping, allowing craps like Brit, BSB and others to rule the music scene.
But about Simpsons, well, I’m not a specialist, but only a big fan (of ironic jokes, specially). THere’s a TV network in Brazil, that plays Simpsons for 6 years...they’re broadcasting all the old seasons since then, with some periods of non-exhibition. But now, they broadcast Simpsons everyday. Since 1998, Simpsons changed to worst...they suffered changes in their atittudes, ’coz new writers entered the staff and some other ones left for other projects (like in the case of Rugrats and Family Guy - yuck...a crap). Simpsons had an agressive humor, with appealing to sex jokes or to jokes that are understood only by political// U.S. inhabitants // U.S. celebrities addicted // movie fanatics. The drawing traces changed, and honestly, Simpsons are today, a parody of what they were...maybe it’s just a coincident series of bad episodes...but it’s the same for Futurama...few jokes make you laugh, and only the jokes make you laugh. Formerly, Simpsons had a whole humoristic atmosphere, the carachters were ’live’. Today, everything feels so ’forced’...
It sounds familiar for me...althought I like them, but when you listen to COY, RS...well, it’s the same taste than Matt Groening’s actual plots...
wendy said on January 25, 2003 17:25:
LOL :DD