Rock's Incurable Inferiority

[markie]

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
  I think you disagree with his point, and are therefore subjecting your own viewpoint as the eminent viewpoint. I think what I said was his point was actually HIS point. Whether you or I or anybody agrees with it is another story, but I do think the "pretentious" interpretation of what he is saying actually was his point.
 
 
 

Yes, actually I think I forgot who I was arguing.
 
 If so why carry on, as an artist, in an irrelevant medium? Why make a piece of work if its unlikely that even yourself would enjoy it?

[jpbelmondo]

"Just one of those people with impeccably bad timing."
 
 Or, one might say, bad taste.  I've never heard a Robbie Fulks record, but I've seen him perform, and while he was a fine guitar player and decent enough singer, his songs were imminently forgettable -- what I do recall is that they seemed mostly to be unfunny novelty tunes.  I think it's fair to say that Fulks' skills as a songwriter have had a big influence on his relative level of success.
 
 Re: the irrelevance of rock music to Culture: as Tom Disch said, in reference to a common complaint about science fiction, 90% of everything is crap. To point out that the Top 40 charts (of anything) are full of it is to state the obvious.  What are more difficult to define -- and what Fulks does not address -- are the criteria for distinguishing great art from everything else.  One test is the degree of devotion and appreciation a work evokes from more than one generation, so to slag off what is popular now merely because it is popular is incredibly myopic.

[bearman🐻]

OK, I gave people a lot of grief over liking the Darkness because they bought into hype, but that article is just ridiculous. I can appreciate many, many different kinds of music, but just because it doesn't have cultural importance or significance doesn't mean it's not worth listening to! As for bands like the Doors or the Clash making rock music to target an audience in mind...well, that is baloney. How is it then that Iggy Pop goes to see the Doors, who won't play their biggest hit ("Light My Fire") and instead choose to antagonize and ridicule the very audience there to see them? And many (and I mean MANY) of the "alternative" artists that I love and cherish also were influenced by bands like the Clash, the Doors, the Rolling Stones, etc. Don't tell me Kurt Cobain became a rock star for the babes and for the money. He didn't last long enough to enjoy it...he was an artist that didn't want to compromise on anything. There ARE people out there that become musicians because this is their calling in life...you are seeing it again nowadays. You think most musicians make a ton of money off the records they sell? Think again. How could anyone in their right mind become a rock star these days for the money? Your chances of winning the lotto are higher. Unless you sell 10 million copies of a record, you really aren't going to get much of a chance to cash in. It's sad but true. Rock'n'roll can be about any number of things...sex, drugs, life, love, partying, death, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. There are no rules...there is no code that was written as to what and why an artist should contribute to society through music like rock'n'roll. The whole point was to break the rules, not follow them. And truly...I have set a bad example for myself by writing so much about what rock is. What it boils down to is honesty. Dylan has it, Johnny Thunders had it, Iggy has it, Cobain had it, Bowie has it, Chrissie Hynde has it, Neil Young has it...think how different all of them are. Sometimes they lose sight of it, but it's still a part of them. Rock is not about what is cool, "alternative", etc. Anyone like Robbie Fulks needs to get drunk and laid and put on "Led Zeppelin II", "Sticky Fingers", or even "Paul's Boutique" and maybe he will realize he's looking at music (and probably the world) through a very narrow field of vision.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Ask Mavis Staples that. Ask Blind Willie McTell that. Ask any number or bluegrass, Baroque, jazz, or players of whatever other forms of marginalized genres there are. Ask any band that plays places like the Grog and Tankard, or JV's in Falls Church or the Halfmoon Barbeque in Silver Spring even after being in the business for twenty years. Who says that these people don't enjoy the process of making the piece of work, just because the masses don't get it?
 
 
 

Originally posted by mark e smith:
   

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
  I think you disagree with his point, and are therefore subjecting your own viewpoint as the eminent viewpoint. I think what I said was his point was actually HIS point. Whether you or I or anybody agrees with it is another story, but I do think the "pretentious" interpretation of what he is saying actually was his point.
 
 
 

Yes, actually I think I forgot who I was arguing.
 
 If so why carry on, as an artist, in an irrelevant medium? Why make a piece of work if its unlikely that even yourself would enjoy it? [/b]

[bearman🐻]

FYI...I really WAS joking around with that last part of my statement  

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

You're probably right. He does have a narrow scope of vision when it comes to music. I imagine many musicians do.
 
 

Originally posted by bunnyman:
  FYI...I really WAS joking around with that last part of my statement    

[Celeste]

Originally posted by mark e smith:
  How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
 
 That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
 
 I think you, not I, missed the point.
 
 As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not.

what I took away from it is that much of Rock and current TV/cinema stems from what is sellable...thereforce commerce gives birth to culture, rather than people's passions, interests or views of life creating the culture...I guess this has a long history dating back to when patrons may have "controlled" what an artist would produce, but at least that was based on the ideals of the patron, not on the goal of making a profit...
 
 I think this profit-driven culture denegrates us all...
 
 Do I say no to it, though? Unfortunately no...but I try to keep it in perspective...

[Sailor Ripley]

"Hey, this doesn't sound half bad to me," I said. "It's kind of a catchy song."

That speaks volumes and not in a good way.

[mankie]

Originally posted by bunnyman:
  OK, I gave people a lot of grief over liking the Darkness because they bought into hype, but that article is just ridiculous. I can appreciate many, many different kinds of music, but just because it doesn't have cultural importance or significance doesn't mean it's not worth listening to! As for bands like the Doors or the Clash making rock music to target an audience in mind...well, that is baloney. How is it then that Iggy Pop goes to see the Doors, who won't play their biggest hit ("Light My Fire") and instead choose to antagonize and ridicule the very audience there to see them? And many (and I mean MANY) of the "alternative" artists that I love and cherish also were influenced by bands like the Clash, the Doors, the Rolling Stones, etc. Don't tell me Kurt Cobain became a rock star for the babes and for the money. He didn't last long enough to enjoy it...he was an artist that didn't want to compromise on anything. There ARE people out there that become musicians because this is their calling in life...you are seeing it again nowadays. You think most musicians make a ton of money off the records they sell? Think again. How could anyone in their right mind become a rock star these days for the money? Your chances of winning the lotto are higher. Unless you sell 10 million copies of a record, you really aren't going to get much of a chance to cash in. It's sad but true. Rock'n'roll can be about any number of things...sex, drugs, life, love, partying, death, happiness, sadness, anger, etc. There are no rules...there is no code that was written as to what and why an artist should contribute to society through music like rock'n'roll. The whole point was to break the rules, not follow them. And truly...I have set a bad example for myself by writing so much about what rock is. What it boils down to is honesty. Dylan has it, Johnny Thunders had it, Iggy has it, Cobain had it, Bowie has it, Chrissie Hynde has it, Neil Young has it...think how different all of them are. Sometimes they lose sight of it, but it's still a part of them. Rock is not about what is cool, "alternative", etc. Anyone like Robbie Fulks needs to get drunk and laid and put on "Led Zeppelin II", "Sticky Fingers", or even "Paul's Boutique" and maybe he will realize he's looking at music (and probably the world) through a very narrow field of vision.

Very eloquent piece of writing.
 
 Let me try to sum-up what I think you are saying.
 
 "Fulks is a twat!"
 
 Am I right?
   

[bearman🐻]

LOL...well sure...but I was explaining WHY I think he is a twat, and there's a difference.    By the way, it is so friggin' gorgeous out today, the last place I should be is at a computer. I recommend we all go out, go to a pub with outdoor seating, and have a pint.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Here, Harriet has made the most astute statement on the board all day.
 
 
 

Originally posted by Harriet Balls:
   

Originally posted by mark e smith:
  How could any entertainment form that virtually everyone in the first world is subjected to and probably buys oh a billion CDs a year be culturally unimportant.
 
 That is like saying TV or cinema is culturally unimportant.
 
 I think you, not I, missed the point.
 
 As for being Art vs high art, how very pretentious. Its all just entertainment. Either it connects with you or it does not.

what I took away from it is that much of Rock and current TV/cinema stems from what is sellable...thereforce commerce gives birth to culture, rather than people's passions, interests or views of life creating the culture...I guess this has a long history dating back to when patrons may have "controlled" what an artist would produce, but at least that was based on the ideals of the patron, not on the goal of making a profit...
 
 I think this profit-driven culture denegrates us all...
 
 Do I say no to it, though? Unfortunately no...but I try to keep it in perspective... [/b]

[mankie]

On the subject of TV culture.
 
 Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
 
 Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

Funny, my wife liked both her AND Martha Stewart...
 
 Can't really comment myself, I aint been watching the show.
 
 

Originally posted by mankie:
  On the subject of TV culture.
 
 Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
 
 Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.

[mankie]

Originally posted by Rutherford J. Balls:
  Funny, my wife liked both her AND Martha Stewart...
 
 Can't really comment myself, I aint been watching the show.
 
   

Originally posted by mankie:
  On the subject of TV culture.
 
 Who else is happy that the BITCH from DC got fired from the apprentice last night? She's had it coming a long time that one.
 
 Sad bastard aren't I...but it's the only reality show I've watched, which isn't bad considering the airwaves are full of the shite these days.

[/b]

Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.

[Celeste]

Originally posted by mankie:
  Can't speak for Martha, but your wife must like lazy, lying, manipulative hyperchondriacs who flash the race card all to easily.

well, I hardly ever watch the show, so I don't really know for sure...at first I was kind of glad she got shit-canned because she seemed like a prima donna...HOWEVER...I could relate to her wanting to sit down to eat lunch, and I don't really care for that Heidi chick...also, she was the only one who had the right instinct about the artist they chose and she was also the only one who could even sell a piece, even though she personally didn't like the art...
 
 that team really blew it! imagine making their choice on price points alone...it's generally easier to sell safe and friendlier art, or at least art they could somewhat understand and like