Rock 'n' roll: more harm than good?

[turtles]

Exactly. There is obviously no evil cabal of mustache twiddling capitalists in black top hats smoking cigars debating about how much they will let the proles get away with!

Too bad there isn't though. It would really make things a lot easier...I would totally kick those guys in the nuts.

 

[Guybrush]

Distraction isn't operating on a level of numb-out-bliss but rather eternal itchy dissatisfaction, false desires. Its not, Nomadologist that entertainment serves to make you forget, per se, but that it functions to entrap one inside IRRELEVANCE.

Brilliantly put. That's exactly how I feel.

 

[DJ PIMP]

The Id is everything that can't be wanted, that can't be represented, that is too difficult to acknowledge.

Unless its as Jung posits, that the (collective) unconscious talks to the conscious mind through the language of archetypes, things that can only be represented symbolically or in myth.

Which would certainly seem to be the mode of operation for most entertainment media, tabloids, advertising etc.

I feel like we're drowning in a sea of fake myth, and that we're on our way to becoming fully inverted beings. The interior-exterior mind-body relationship has been reversed by virtuality (the mind has been externalised and the physical relegated and made sedentary), and we have manufactured the collective consciousness in the form of the internet and global communications and are now attempting to become fully unconscious - in that we have no appreciation of myth as a form of instructive truth relating to society or ourselves, leaving ourselves at the mercies of those who utilise mythical archetypes to channel our unconscious energies.

The nature of the object fetish that you touched on relates in a sense as well. In the myth of Narcissus he didn't fall in love with himself, he fell in love with his reflection. The object is a reflection of the self in its creation, but also in its perception, in that any sense of beauty must be within the individual innately. But we become addicted to the externalisation of that beauty rather than looking within? I think in part the externalised self has become so important because its a reflection of our externalisation from the natural world.

Its that same principle of inversion (my thing for 2006) at work.

 

[the undisputed truth]

^^^haha you should come work for the Dept of Hell Science...

...we're looking for a mythologist

 

[nomadologist]

Exactly. There is obviously no evil cabal of mustache twiddling capitalists in black top hats smoking cigars debating about how much they will let the proles get away with! Its that Capitalism seeks to create ever greater number of desires, ie- demand, new demands which are inessential, in order to continue to grow once all primary demands have been met. This in itself functions as a control system. Its probably necessary to distinguish between Capitalistic organisations and what was once termed "The Political Establishment". If anything the negotiations of the 60s were between this third party and the masses, negotiated trough the functions of capitalism. In time of course the political class became increasingly irrelevant/directly identified with capitalistic organisations, and whilst capitalism doesn't care how you spend your free time, it hopes dearly that you literally spend it, (on lovely entertainment) rather than use it to destroy its interests!

Hmm. Right, multiply object-cathexes a la Freud and the individual's enslavement to these desires becomes a means for social control in multiple forms. I can buy this to a point. What I don't understand is what your ontology must be if you believe these things. Are beings always already political beings? that kinda riff

And then there's the "irrelevance" bit. Well, I've studied ads and how ads are bought and placed, etc., and I would say ads are very relevant, and breed all kinds of socially relevant images and phenomena. At least insofar as the very point of an ad (especially now) is to simply hold up a mirror the consumer--try to reflect their ego ideal back at them in your ad and they'll buy you because your brand IS their lifestyle which IS their identity. Relevance in this sense can be measured by what people DO with their corner of the market--their real "capital"-- under capitalism, and in pretty straightforward numbers. Maybe I could get some flowcharts that illustrate this from someboyd...

 

[nomadologist]

In the myth of Narcissus he didn't fall in love with himself, he fell in love with his reflection.

Agamben highlights this in Stanzas, which I keep going back to lately. Trying to aesthetically conjure up some coherent vision of the New Dark Age for fun. Because that's what people seem to want, or at least seem to ttry iterate it into existence.

The object is a reflection of the self in its creation, but also in its perception, in that any sense of beauty must be within the individual innately. But we become addicted to the externalisation of that beauty rather than looking within? I think in part the externalised self has become so important because its a reflection of our externalisation from the natural world.

Hhhmm. I don't think beauty means anything under capital does it? The determinism in thinking everything is a function of its function under capital--or at least the reductionism in it--sorta seems to circumvent aesthetic considerations as anything other than mirages, the gleam on anything that capital makes desirable.

 

[nomadologist]

Its exactly these ugly impulses WHICH WE DEARLY need! Damage is precisely the point!

In reference to drug-entertainment/marketing/liberalisation metaphors, I think Heroin is a pretty weak one. Cocaine on the other hand fits the bill perfectly, primarily for the SENSE OF INCREDIBLE DISAPPOINTMENT! That total lack of of fuck me-complete enjoyment, rather that sense of eternal "is this it?"

Distraction isn't operating on a level of numb-out-bliss but rather eternal itchy dissatisfaction, false desires. Its not, Nomadologist that entertainment serves to make you forget, per se, but that it functions to entrap one inside IRRELEVANCE. Of course I am a hypocrite! I speak from a position of intense, loathsome and repulsive hypocrisy!

Yeah, but Marx used "opiate of the masses" so I assumed you all would. Coke is exactly what pop culture WAS--fast, hard, sexy, cheap high. Crack on the other is is what the subject under capital is smoking now. Faster, harder, ugly, cheaper high. Since Reagan i would say. wink

So you're saying art is bad? I don't think art produces the "sublime" or anything of value, I think it is the product of productive impulses, that left repressed, would become violence, war, death, plague, thisstuff.

 

[nomadologist]

nothing like that feeling on coke of vague horniness with no object where you'd rather do anything than actually perform any kind of sexual encounter. then that turns into intense guilt and displeasure within an hour of cessation, or for some people, 10 minutes.

once a brain is conditioned to it chemically, if you've hit saturation point fast and often enough, it doesn't have much of a net effect at all.

i guess i don't watch TV more than an hour every two weeks till my eyes bleed or the radio or barely read blogs some newspapers at work. don't know what the collective delusion of the day is, i'm busy and entertained with my own. (not on my oed-Ipod--i'll go days forgetting to charge mine, forget to put music on when i'm home, let someone else do it, whatever, have probably bought a grand total of 15 CDs this year, all of which were used except one. just have no interest in giving away my marketshare, to TV-specific media especially. ugh. Flashing pictures in your face loud voices ugly timbre ugly colors. No thanks.) should probably stop using myspace too for that matter.

 

[nomadologist]

Sorry, w/regards to this matter I am way way over-informed. I wouldn't have opened my mouth in the first place if I wasn't absolutley sure of what I was saying, and in fact that's the only reason I did say anything - because I read something I knew to be patently false. I don't care about Nickelback at all, but the fact of the matter is that I just spent 6 long months living with a someone who worked at Sony-BMG and Coalition managing Sum 41, Our Lady Peace and a bunch of other bands. He is on a first name basis with pretty much every guy in the alt-rock industry and I have had to endure literally hundreds of hours of insider conversation about every aspect of every lame band and record label in Canada. I know way more about Nickelback's career than I ever wanted to know.

I don't like rock music, and I have zero interest in propping up some sort of fake story about this shitty band, but the truth is that there are no elaborate focus groups behind them, and no made-up story - this I know for a fact. I can tell you with absolute certainty that they are as plain and boring as their music, and that their story checks out. Their initial independent, self-managed and self-financed Canadian career was supported by CANCON legislation, VideoFACT and touring every rotten town in the country, not by any record company or payola whatsoever. Everyone in the Canadian record industry knows this, as do many regular Canadians. There's no such thing as payola for Canadian bands, and Canadian music videos are financed by the government (aka rapper welfare). The media are legally required to play Canadian music, and struggle to fill the quota - thus popularizing a lot of crappy independant bands like Nickelback without ANY record industry support. Even Nelly furtado relied on the same government system to get her acoustic trip-hop career started. The ones that do well in the government-rigged domestic market get signed and exported to the states. Some make it (Nickelback, K-os), but most get sent back to Canada with their tail between their legs (The Tragically Hip) - that's the Canadian system. It's essentially a government-sponsored record industry farm-league.

As far as how Nickelback have been managed/marketed outside the country after signing to an American label - I dont know firsthand. I can tell you that no aspect of their music or image has changed since they first appeared in the Canadian media as an independent group with absolutely no record label support, so I find your allegations that their music, image and story are manufactured to be pretty absurd. You may have worked in the record industry somewhere in the world, but you obviously have no clue how the Canadian record industry works. 50,000 units to go gold in Canada, 100,000 for platinum.. budgets are equally tiny. There is simply NO MONEY to speculatively develop domestic Canadian rock acts in the way that American pop stars are developed and marketed. It's a completely different ballgame here than in any other music industry, and that's what makes your speculations (which might be comletely reasonable based on how the American record industry works) so blantantly absurd in the specific case of Nickelback and the Canadian record industry. I'm giving you the straight facts, just ask ANYONE who has anything to do with the Canadian record industry.

Ummm. Look into who owns Sony-BMG ultimately. I'm guessing Viacom but I could be wrong. Viacom does NOT throw money at bad investments. Taking risks on something as obvious and surefire as even Nickelback without a lone focus group would not bode well for Viacom. Small labels can do this, even if they're owned by a major distributor sometimes (Mute Records) but it's rare. Plus, the Canadian branch is probably of Sony-BMG is probably lower on the distribution chain, so the real "boardroom" talk in the marketing division would be done at world HQ--maybe even Viacom. Not to mention the surveying and even the audience research companies Canada uses like maybe Arbitron would figure heavily. All based in the U.S. Does your friend work with Sony-BMg's marketing division? Managers are usually in the dark about some of this end of the financials.

I'm not going to argue with you about Canadian bands not getting a lot of development fund$, youre right there. Typically. But Nickelback is a huge crossover success and makes American megamillions now. So they're going to develop them accordingly.

Anyway, you could be right based on insider info, but it is highly unlikely this kind of situation, it's the label's dream to spend nothing on development and make millions. All the big boy bands and divas started out that way.

 

[nomadologist]

and the point was less that theIR image was manufactured, more that it is highly contrived at this point, especially as far as the label is concerned. if you have a contract you do what the label tells you will make money unless you have a damn good reason not to. CF Prince.

 

[nomadologist]

after all, you can't trip over a CEO or ad exec in midtown without hearing "BUSINESS DRIVES CREATIVE" anymore. used to be in the music industry business paid in excess for the privilege of profiting off the creative.

 

[nomadologist]

speaking of Freud and cocaine, there was one RAGING cokehead. he was getting entire ounces (or whatever their unit was) of pure cocaine straight off the boat, too, for pennies. and no one saw anything wrong with it. till freud himself must have realized his and Breuer's theories about the nose as the sexual seat of the psyche or something like that were a little off. after a while Freud moved to Paris or something to recuperate.

Sherlock Holmes shot 80% pure solutions of cocaine to fuel his scienticianly deduction adventures.

 

[petergunn]

speaking of Freud and cocaine, there was one RAGING cokehead. he was getting entire ounces (or whatever their unit was) of pure cocaine straight off the boat, too, for pennies. and no one saw anything wrong with it. till freud himself must have realized his and Breuer's theories about the nose as the sexual seat of the psyche or something like that. after a while Freud moved to Paris or something to recuperate.

my fav part of that story is that Freud would write letters to his wife talking about how he was gonna get a noseful of cocaine and fuck her senseless... it's right up there with James Joyce's dirty letters for one of those "Oh, so THAT'S how they roll!" type moments...

 

[DJ PIMP]

And then there's the "irrelevance" bit. Well, I've studied ads and how ads are bought and placed, etc., and I would say ads are very relevant, and breed all kinds of socially relevant images and phenomena. At least insofar as the very point of an ad (especially now) is to simply hold up a mirror the consumer--try to reflect their ego ideal back at them in your ad and they'll buy you because your brand IS their lifestyle which IS their identity.

And they do this through archetypes! ...actors, models etc.

Paris Hilton is the Princess.

Johnny Depp is the Rebel.

Uma Thurman is the muse.

Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter, haha.

People become consumed by the archetypes... I've spoken about this before on here - about how celebs are like inverted mythical figures. The characters they portray are unimportant - we care more about their real lives. Inverted Myth!

 

[nomadologist]

my fav part of that story is that Freud would write letters to his wife talking about how he was gonna get a noseful of cocaine and fuck her senseless... it's right up there with James Joyce's dirty letters for one of those "Oh, so THAT'S how they roll!" type moments...

HAHA. Oh boy. Must have been really good shit. Because that awful delivery service crap most kids are buying these days, all shiny and cut with crank, is not exactly an aphrodisiac in my experience.

 

[nomadologist]

And they do this through archetypes! ...actors, models etc.

Paris Hilton is the Princess.

Johnny Depp is the Rebel.

Uma Thurman is the muse.

Anthony Hopkins is Hannibal Lecter, haha.

People become consumed by the archetypes... I've spoken about this before on here - about how celebs are like inverted mythical figures. The characters they portray are unimportant - we care more about their real lives. Inverted Myth!

Yeah I like that better than the old Oedipal triangle with its severe and exacting limitations on the scope of human experience. Sometimes I think archetypes break down, I think it's kinda simple. All the film people I know are big into these ideas. They make people a shitload of money so I guess these archetypes must strike some chord.

 

[nomadologist]

...well rock and rock n roll did me more harm than good

i came from a small town in rural new zealand where if you liked anything other than pink floyd, ac/dc and jimi hendrix...etc etc...you were some sort of alien freak...

I used to wonder what was wrong with me not liking that shit instead prefering funk and r'n'b...

...thank fuck for hiphop !!!

AMEN. Didn't see this before.

Don't really have a problem with all rock, I like a lot of rock, but I'll be fucked if I allow myself to buy the whole "footnote to jazz and blues greats, black authenticity legitimizes our credibility" Rolling Stones type of acoustic-to-electric (but then NO MORE TECHNOLOGY) bullshit.

 

[nomadologist]

"What can it be that you want ... a tooth out of the Caliph's jaw, a jewel from Queen Victoria's crown, a giant's autograph, or something equally fantastic which would mean putting on my armor at once and setting out for the Orient?" Freud to Martha

That is pretty hottt. Then he says this:

"I stand for an infinitely freer sexual life, although I myself have made very little use of such freedom."

Aww. Poor Freud! That's cuz you were repressed, and Victorian fin-de-siecle sexual politics got all tangled up in your theories.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,711992-2,00.html

 

[gek-opel]

Yeah, but Marx used "opiate of the masses" so I assumed you all would. Coke is exactly what pop culture WAS--fast, hard, sexy, cheap high. Crack on the other is is what the subject under capital is smoking now. Faster, harder, ugly, cheaper high. Since Reagan i would say. wink

So you're saying art is bad? I don't think art produces the "sublime" or anything of value, I think it is the product of productive impulses, that left repressed, would become violence, war, death, plague, thisstuff.

My point is that perhaps we need rupture (on a conceptual level), and violence, and not just in far away places, but here, and now. What other way is there of changing the real? There's an interesting point to be made about how we save Art from entertainment, but its an extremely fine line given how closely the two are now identified (in feedback loops amongst themselves as well). But one could certainly talk of Art in the past, perhaps, and look at how in the age of mediated images art itself is the first victim. We cannot see a famous painting, it has already been utterly destroyed, by the reproduction of its image. It is invisible. Yet another ghost of capital perhaps.

 

[nomadologist]

BENJAMIN. Interesting. It is very difficult to draw a line [btwn art and entertainment] except intuitively w/r/t context or buzzwords like "framing." But I think because I'm way outside of the Marxist reading here and I get really frustrated when I read Benjamin I don't see a problem with entertainment being sublimation, regardless of its status as art.