|
Post by Jeff on Nov 4, 2005 17:18:04 GMT -5
The Rock Snob: An anatomy of a delicate breed. www.slate.com/id/2129511/"At some point, drag-and-drop deposits will overwhelm even the most cavernous hard drive; a person will have to choose, and then their true colors will out: The Killers? Lenny Kravitz? Dave Matthews??? Because let's face it, only one thing is more incorrigible than my snobbery, people, and that's your indefensibly crappy taste in music."
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 4, 2005 17:23:07 GMT -5
Actually Chris(t), Rock and Roll was one of the main forces behind the birth of the Postmodernist era, which has radically changed the way all of western culture views the world and interacts with it. Now granted I hate western culture, but most people believe it to be somewhat important and influential.
So while I understand the spirit behind your post, I think it's a bit too hasty of a judgment.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Nov 5, 2005 11:43:18 GMT -5
Damn! I just wrote and accidentally erased a HUGE post about how much rock & roll figured into the democratic movements of Eastern Europe prior to the collapse of the Wall and all that jazz. I even transcribed page after page of a Lou Reed interview with the first Czech President Václav Havel wherein the playwrite-turned-politician described the whole musical origin of the so called Velvet Revolution and Velvet Divorce (named after the Velvet Underground). Suffice it to say, rock music and a tired nation's passion for rock are at least partly responsible for liberating millions from tyrannical Soviet-bloc regimes. Havel said as much in the interview, which I really should retype and post. But geez.... I guess if I get around to it later, I'll retype an abbreviated version.
|
|
|
Post by chris on Nov 5, 2005 12:12:12 GMT -5
Hmm... color me suspicious. For some reason, I don't think Eastern bloc revolution was what they had in mind when Velvet Underground was in the studio (what did they have on the mind? lots and lots of drugs). And as for Havel, I'm reminded of the Onion's "Our Dumb Century" article: "Ethiopia to Bono: Please Help Us." And if Bono is interviewing an American politician, do you really think that the politician is going to say to Bono's face, "Sorry, but while your music was topical and quite listenable, it had absolutely no real-world impact on the decisions being made by those in power."
I'm not saying you're wrong... I'm just skeptical. And oh... I had a long post too, but I accidentally deleted it, and um, yeah, I just decided to condense my argument too. ;^)
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 5, 2005 12:24:35 GMT -5
Does this mean that our rock aesthetic should tilt political? Are songs like Keep on Rocking in the Free World more valuable than love songs like Yesterday?
I worry about subordinating aesthetics to politics. In fact, I worry about having to justify aesthetics at all. If any thing, the justifications seem to run the other way: A state, a person, and a set of actions can be more or less harmonious and well-ordered, which seem like aesthetic principles to me. I agree with Chris that when we pull back the curtain on our aesthetic assumptions we find vague ideas like importance.
So, maybe the Stones got something right. It's only Rock and Roll but I like it! Is there anything more fundamental than the second half of that sentence?
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Nov 5, 2005 13:38:58 GMT -5
Jeff, no I don't think music has to be validated by its political impact. However, Chris had brought up the fact that what some might call important acts from popular music were not particularly important outside of the genre itself. Dave mentioned that rock & roll figured into the development of artistic postmodernism, and I merely seconded that with a mention of how rock & roll had figured into noteworthy political change (not the cause, but at least a factor therein). So, the point stands that it is at least arguable that rock & roll has some impact outside of its own style of expression and its obvious economics. In that vein, musical importance can be--well--important.
Chris, I never said that the Velvet Underground was intending with their music to bring about an end to what is often called European Communism. In the former Czechoslovakia, youthful playrights such as Hável may have occasionally offered a voice of (limited) dissent, but they were certainly not leaders of lasting social change. And yet, Hável somehow went from being one of a handful of kids listening to a banned music to being the voice of millions, and here's what he had to say about some of the process of getting there:
"[...] But since we started to talk about music (specificially, they'd been talking about how almost all types of musical performance had been banned prior to the revolution -jtm), I'd like to say one thing. That this revolution of ours has, apart from all other faces, also a musical face. Or an artistic face. And it also has a very specific musical background."
"At the end of the '60s there was a wave here of rock music... Most of the bands after the Soviet invasion broke up or started playing different music because good rock music was actually banned. There was one band in particular which lasted, which did not rename itself, which did not change. There were several, but this one was the best known. And their style of music was much influienced by the Velvet Underground, whose record I brought back from New York in 1968. It was one of the first records....And this band began to be much persecuted--first they lost their professional status, and then they could only play in private parties. And for a time they also played in the barn of my summer cottage where we had to, in a very complicated way, organize secret concerts.... And its name was the Plastic People of the Universe. And there originated around it a whole underground movement in the dark '70s and '80s. Then they were arrested. With several friends we organized a campaign against their arrest, and it was quite hard to convince some very serious gentlemen and academics and Nobel Prize winners to take a stand on behalf of some hairy rock musicians. Nevertheless, we succeeded. And this led to the formation of a community of solidarity of sorts."
"Most of these musicians were released and some received light sentences under the pressure of our campaign. And it seemed to us that this community that originated in this way shouldn't just dissolve after this but should go on in some more stable form, and that's how the Charter 77 human rights movement originated. [. . .] But now, members of the Charter 77 are deputies in the parliament, members of the government, or here in the castle."
"I myself was one of the first three spokesmen of the Charter 77. By this I mean to say that music, underground music, in particular one record by a band called Velvet Underground (Hável appears to not recognize that Lou Reed was a member of the band -jtm), played a rather significant role in the development in our country, and I don't think that many people in the United States have noticed this. So this is one thing I wanted to tell you."
By the way, this was excerpted from "To Do the Right Thing: Lou Reed Interviews Vaclav Hável," one of a series of short Reed interviews with artists and thinkers he admired. The series also included an interview with author Hubert Selby, and would have included Nelson Mandella. However, that last one never panned out for a variety of reasons. And for the record, Hável goes on to say in his interview that the name Velvet Revolution originated exclusively among western journalists, but that "the label caught on here [in the Czech Republic]."
|
|
|
Post by Thanin on Nov 5, 2005 14:23:30 GMT -5
I was worried that people would think that I was only referring to Postmodernism in art. Postmodernism is actually an era of thought that encompasses art, but isn't restricted to art. Forget art when thinking of Postmodernism. Pluralism goes well beyond art and is fundamental in Postmodernism.
Now I'm not trying to elevate this stuff just because I like it. In another link I mention how art/music/writing is a selfish pursuit and I imply that people shouldn't do it. If I felt music were an empty hobby, I'd gladly admit it. I'm constantly saying how pointless all my actions are. I have no fear of calling something hollow when it is, even if it's something I love (D&D anyone?). Music doesn't fall into this category and it's been shown to have an influence that goes beyond its own medium, as well as going beyond just affecting other forms of art. If anything I'd say the assertion that it isn't important has yet to be articulated.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Nov 5, 2005 14:53:25 GMT -5
Justin:
That’s what I figured. I agree entirely that art has momentous cultural and political impact, perhaps especially a people’s art like Rock and Roll. I just wanted to hear you say what you said, that art impacts us in other ways, too. I wasn’t disagreeing with you so much as trying to make sure that the broad avenue of artistic value wasn’t turned into a narrow gate.
David:
“Elevate this stuff just because I like it.” Amen. Tell us about it.
You mention pluralism… I am on your side, again, so long as it’s pluralism sans extreme relativism or subjectivism.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on May 5, 2006 0:10:33 GMT -5
Hey, I found a Stones song that actually works on almost every level: Street Fighting Man. I guess I had never heard it, or at least I had forgotten it.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on May 5, 2006 9:33:27 GMT -5
Jeff, My MusicHound:Rock book says something like, "It's a pity that the weakest cuts on Beggar's Banquest, i.e., 'Sympathy for the Devil' and 'Street Fighting Man,' are its best known." I almost completely agree, but that's not to disparage either of those two tunes; they're greeeeaaaattt! That said, I do find that I often fast-forward through them when listening to that album. There's some really cool tunes on it. Lyrically? Eh...nothing special on most of 'em. But I think the music is tops, and it works to great effect on songs like...well, the whole damn album, really. Probably my favorite Stones record. If not, I think it's right up there with Sticky Fingers, Let it Bleed, and Exile on Main St.
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 5, 2006 10:32:07 GMT -5
Well, I think there is world of difference between those two songs. I can see panning the former. Anyway, the air must be harsh and cold on Rock Snob Mountain. Nice place to visit, though.
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on May 5, 2006 10:44:54 GMT -5
Jeff, bro, you got me all wrong. I LOVE "Street Fighting Man," and have for years. I thought that if you liked "Street Fighting Man," you might also like some other tunes from that period of their lives. So the above post was really just my awful way of making a recommendation for you to check out the rest of the album, as well. I'd especially recommend "Prodigal Son," which is, of course, just right out of Luke... by way of the Mississippi delta. My sincere apologies if you thought I was criticizing your tastes.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on May 5, 2006 10:52:17 GMT -5
Not at all. I wasn't knocking you, I was knocking that book. I looked over a few of your rock books when I was at your house at Christmas. They are cool...but I think I just listen to music differently.
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 9, 2006 21:34:32 GMT -5
Once again, we are ahead of the curve: The Perils of Poptimism: Does hating rock make you a music critic? www.slate.com/id/2141418/What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by ryan on May 10, 2006 5:18:31 GMT -5
It's easy to forget that the term "Pop" is short for "Popular." And while the word "popular" makes most of us think of high-school prom-queens or TV stars, the word also has another meaning: "of the people." It is this secondary meaning which is most applicable to the term "pop," as I define the word. I use the term "pop" to define any music which draws deeply from the structural concepts of folk-music and hymns: Intro, Verse, Chorus, Refrain, Break, Bridge, Solo, Outro. These timeless musical components form the bedrock of pop-music. Pop music employs these components, arranging them in different ways to get different effects. Some pop-music is bombastic and long-winded, but a key conceit of much pop music (especially in the punk and radio-single strains of pop) is efficiency: the ability to combine these musical units in ways that create the maximum desired effect in the least amount of time. In the pop-efficiency camp, any song that stretches over 4'30" is suspect, and should probably be re-written.
I consider pop-music to be "of the people" for two reasons. First, it is a type of music that connects across boundaries. While that guy out there digging the ditch behind your house might not be too moved by a Beethoven sonata, he doubtlessly has a favorite song. Maybe a Johnny Cash tune. Or AC/DC. Both examples of pop-music.
Secondly, pop music is "of the people" because its rules of composition are easy to grasp, and loose enough to allow for an endless variety of personal expression. Everyday people can write pop songs; all you need is a voice, a guitar or keyboard, and a good sense of how to write a verse and a chorus. Conversely, everyday people cannot write sonatas, minuets, symphonies, or jazz.
So, yeah, call me a Poptimist, as long as it's by my definition of the word.
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 10, 2006 9:44:18 GMT -5
We've touched on this, too: Is Stephin Merritt a racist because he doesn't like hip-hop? www.slate.com/id/2141421/nav/tap1/"If the number of black artists in your iPod falls too far below 12.5 percent of the total, then you are violating someone's civil rights." PS Ryan, I agree with what you wrote, especially the bit about efficiency in pop music. My current experiments in this area are making passages that are built up like a chorus/refrain but only occur once in a song. I can get most of my songs down to 2 1/2 minutes and still say everything I want to these days. And if I can go lower without losing real content, I will. If I can say what I need to say with just one musical section, i.e. A as opposed to AABA or whatever, I will. I think think you are right on the money.
|
|
|
Post by jtmx1 on May 10, 2006 10:03:51 GMT -5
Last Slate link for the day: www.slate.com/id/2141093/?nav=navoaBetter Than Prozac: Listening to New Order It's a nice write up about a band that has influenced everyone and their dogs. With such amazing appeal, one might think they would easier to pin down. But they are aesthetically mysterious...kinda like the smell of sex. OK that was odd.
|
|
|
Post by chris on May 10, 2006 11:25:53 GMT -5
Slight deviation based on that last link -- I disagree with his take on the Marie Antoinette trailer; I think the asynchronous aspect of it does not work at all. Oh, look, crazy, sexed-up teens are the same in any age -- happy on the outside, sad on the inside. Uh, no. Versailles + New Order = a ridiculous thing. There may have been other rock or pop songs that could have had the desired effect, but this wasn't it. If not for the possibility of seeing Kristen Dunst naked, I'd eschew this movie altogether just out of principle!
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on May 10, 2006 12:07:32 GMT -5
Ever since I saw that trailer awhile back, I've been missing my copy of "Power, Corruption, and Lies." I forgot how much of an impact New Order (and Joy Division) had on me back in my high school days. Heck, on the D&m song "'45," recorded a few months after graduation, I think I was actually channelling Sumner's voice and (seeming lack of) melodic sense. When I'm honest about things, I think they're probably one of my oldest, if not biggest, musical influences. Not their dancy poppiness--which I never really liked--but their cultivation of general aloofness and/or outright anonymity in both tune and lyric, and of course Hook's wandering but melodic basslines.
Oh, and I noticed Chris used the word 'crazy' in his last post. That reminds me of the Neil Young and Crazy Horse kick I've been on for....well, a long time... but it's been reintensified in the past week. Long live Neil Young. Long live the remaining living members of Crazy Horse. Is it just me or do you guys also believe that Neil Young's influence on "alternative" (I hate using that word) and indie music run so deep that it's impossible to imagine those genres without him?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on May 11, 2006 0:32:38 GMT -5
"Versailles + New Order = a ridiculous thing." O M G. I had not actually watched the trailer, but you are quite right. This looks like pretentious crap. I don’t really care for Dunst—though I did like her Mary in ESotSM. I don’t care for Ms. Coppola, either. I think Lost in Translation was wonderful, lightyears beyond Virgin Suicides. But her treatment of women bothers me. She seems to fetishize her female characters. They are too mysterious or too easily known, instead of being the authentic kind of muddle that we humans really are. If Coppola can deliver another film like LiT, then I will relent. But right now that one looks like a lucky fluke to me. On to something stranger: Maria Antonia Josepha Johanna von Habsburg-Lorraine was the first historical figure that I really loathed. I was young--about 4th grade—but for a week or so, I remember just being filled with hatred toward her. Seems silly now, but it was quite vexing at the time. Now, of course, she seems like a victim of history. Her brand of frivolity and stupidity was just not suited to a time of bread shortages. Besides, most of the evil in the world has been done by right-handed men of at least 5'5''. Still I remember staring at that picture in my parents' old Comptons. You know the one… I knew she was rich, and that bothered me a little. But it was the way her hand sat upon the globe that really made me hate her. Here was an epitome of 18th century European beauty, and for about a week I dreamed of the mob chanting around the little cart as she went along to meet her fate. These dreams were frightening because I did not commonly wish death on anyone. I drew pictures of the guillotine at school, carefully tracing the slant of the blade. I remember being angry with the way the encyclopedia defended her famous remark about baked goods: She was young. She never said it. Or if she did, “cake” meant something different back then. There was something monstrous and self-defeating in this defense. Still, my little 4th grade mind wondered whether she really deserved to die. Marie never really cared about politics, which meant that she was more than a little oblivious to suffering. And that is the deepest definition of youth isn’t it: a life as yet untouched by tragedy. What she became for me, though I’ve only just now realized it, was a symbol of the tragedy of prolonged youth, sort of an anti-Peter Pan. In her death was my own secret wish to grow up, to be recognized as the kind of person whose caring means something to others. There is still that kind of luck. An unlucky person might be condemned to care for only a few cats. But others are blessed with opportunities to show their quality. May we ever. Jeff PS I learned my hatred of Andrew Jackson the same year (1979-1980), but that is an entirely different story, one that involves a puppet and a treasure map.
|
|