Rock 'n' roll: more harm than good?

[tatarsky]

I am in agreement with you on this - definitely the conclusion I seem to be coming to - that all of these important movements have battled to level the economic playing field/topple the corporate pyramid in one way or another, the utopian dream does indeed seem to be a free market one.

I only meant it was an oxymoron in that a lot of "punks" wouldn't like this idea very much. Or at least, they might not have done in the 1970s. I interviewed Richard Hell and he read over my theories on all this, and I was pretty surprised when he didn't rip my head off and tell me it was all a load of rubbish.

As for the neo-classical massive's blinkered ways, you should chack out the whole Post-Austistic Economics movement, very interesting...

http://www.paecon.net/

Yes quite, I've been stewing on this idea for a while now, and been wondering about the angle from which to attack it for a thread. It seems swears's blurts have given me the opportunity.

Anyway, punk-as-capitalism seems like a counterintuitive notion, and you're right that many a punk would probably be disgusted at the idea, but this doesn't really bother me. I've never seen this notion of punk-as-capitalism discussed anywhere before, so, well, respect to you, sir. I'd be interested in seeing some of your research here, and would love to add my two penneth, if you think it helpful.

More generally, I'm coming to the conclusion that the greatest trick 'modern kapital' (as I believe its correct to term it around here) has played is in convincing that it stakes out the free market capitalist dream, so that those of revolutionary tendencies busy themselves looking in the wrong areas. The evidence of DIY punk (and probably dubplate culture today) demonstrate the alternative to the monopoly and monoculture of the korporate kapital agenda beautifully.

Interesting that you should link to PAE - this is the second time someone's refered me there in a matter of days. (See the comments box on this lenin's tomb post - http://leninology.blogspot.com/2006/12/not-dead-enough.html) Prior to that, I was unaware of PAE, an oversight that I'm frankly slightly ashamed of! Still, it makes for a rather nice dissensus-based coincidence. Perhaps i'll add it to that thread.

 

[nomadologist]

yes fanatacism engenders nazism... along with every worthwhile thing that mankind has ever accomplished.

I don't exactly see what latinos in Brooklyn have to do with Nelly Furtado. She's not a latina for one thing. That her pop music is popular in a demographic towards which a string of high profile singles have just been marketted does not strike me as a remarkable or relevant point. I don't know if you have heard her past work (before she got the Timbo facelift) but its straight adult contemporary shlock in the vein of "What if God were one of us". Now that she's produced by Timbo all of a sudden she's the voice of the disenfranchised or something. Sorry Im not buying it.

what good was every engendered by fanaticism? sometimes on the level of individual psychology an obsession with something could end in some sort of productivity or discovery or aesthetic project, but on the cultural level fanaticism is, well, never good. fanaticism is pathological.

nelly furtado is portugese. i don't particularly like her, but a lot of latinos do. did anyone say she's the voice of the "disenfranchised"? never heard that one. and who cares if that's what anyone says? don't get what you're trying to say about nelly furtado. they always market people who look hispanic directly at latinos. there are tons of latinos in the U.S. hence her success. is there something wrong with that?

 

[nomadologist]

and Nickelback most likely are all studio musicians who are themselves a grunge-pastiche carefullly constructed by industry heavyweights with lots of access to the data sets that help them determine what kind of music is going to sell. heavily focus grouped. heavily payolla-ed onto the radio and TRL and what have you. nothing gets released anymore that isn't a very deliberate cashcow put out to pasture.

 

[nomadologist]

re Punk: anyone who participates in the marketplace is a kapitalist, right? diy-ers actually use their refusal to use major label capital to build "cred," which as another form of "cultural capital" seems to be just another way of participating in the marketplace, doesn't it?

 

[the undisputed truth]

...be your own messiah

 

[nomadologist]

yeah, do that!

i would say hip-hop avoids any sort of "oxymoronic" pitfall like "punk entrepreneurship" (is that how Matt said it?) by having always consciously used the marketplace to take black culture, blackness, something that had always been bracketed off and left out of the marketplace, to throw the black American predicament up in the face of as many people as possible.

The way hip-hop openly used the music industry, consciously cultivated the commercial, in order to give black Americans a voice in the market seems brilliant to me. It was in fact more radically political and had more of a political effect for "Cop Killa" to be a chart-topper than it would have been if a few hundred white people heard it on a mixtape. Hip-hop, especially early on and through the "gangsta" years, created a public discourse about blackness and what it meant to be a black American that centered around pop music, using what works best in pop idioms--caricatures, ironic distance, fierce individualism, self-parody, theater, literary devices like the gothic, high drama, street language, parlance.

Hip hop artists' insistence on consciously cultivating the market, consciously creating a marketplace for its idea, in the end bulldozed down some old structures and constructed a new public space within pop for "blackness" and the urban disenfranchised. It forced white people to listen to what they never wanted to hear in a way dropping out of the marketplace would never have.

Punk and it's cry of "anarchy" never quite got to that point, though I think in its time and place had a positive net effect to a certain point.

 

[nomadologist]

This is one of the main reasons I made this post, idiots like bono thinking they can make a difference.
Fucking hell, I wish I was smart enough to actually back up some of the things I say, I'm as seduced by radical ideas as much as bono and his ilk are seduced by the mighty dollar. But I just wish things were different, that I lived in some some parallel universe where evething wasn't so disgusting, egotistical and tragic.

With the amount of money the U2 franchise has managed to drum up in the past 10 years, Bono could make a HUGE contribution to "making a difference" in the world. He and his bandmates could make large unrestricted donations to third-world education or nation-building NPOs, AIDS-relief charities, so many very worthy causes. Even the Gates Enterprise. EVEN BETTER, these would be TAX DEDUCTIBLE in the U.S.

Instead, Bono and company keeping moving U2 LLC to a new country to evade taxation. First it was Ireland, then they pushed it too far there and had to go to the Netherlands.

Ya Bono, he fucking cares. About promoting his brand to baby boomers who think they're socially conscious.

 

[nomadologist]

It strikes me just now, reading the first 10 or so posts on here again, that one of the BIGGEST problems with Swears' point-of-view (and that of those who echo his) is that "rebellion" is somehow and essential component to what rock-and-roll is. That "rebellion" is the sum-total of rock's cultural significance.

No one today who listens to rock would put it in those terms. I can't think of one person I know who would try to say they like rock because it is inherently some form of tried-and-true cultural resistence and not an aesthetic preoccupation.

That idea is important earlier on in rock and pop music (see, nowadays rock isn't even the most important genre of popular music, and doesn't hold sway anymore really) when the repression of the 50s got so far out of balance that the Id came roaring out and tipped the scales back a little in its favor. Where there is less repression, sublimation gets less ferocious, and, well, things like pop music seem a little less sexually charged than they may have when people were a lot more prudish.

No, listening to rock isn't making anybody rebellious--but it never was. It was and still is a war waged on culturally endorsed and socially instituted repression. And isn't that what culture is, qua civilization? Civilization is always at the cost of repression, therefore, art (for Freud, art is where we finally discharge through 'sublimation' all of our repressed libido) will always be resonant.

Ever read Freud "On Civilization and Its Discontents", Swears? You'd like it.

 

[Precious Cuts]

and Nickelback most likely are all studio musicians who are themselves a grunge-pastiche carefullly constructed by industry heavyweights with lots of access to the data sets that help them determine what kind of music is going to sell. heavily focus grouped. heavily payolla-ed onto the radio and TRL and what have you. nothing gets released anymore that isn't a very deliberate cashcow put out to pasture.

completely wrong. They werent put together by any guru. They are a bunch of hicks that have been playing the same song over and over again since high school. Their generic stupidity comes quite naturally.

 

[Precious Cuts]

what good was every engendered by fanaticism? sometimes on the level of individual psychology an obsession with something could end in some sort of productivity or discovery or aesthetic project, but on the cultural level fanaticism is, well, never good. fanaticism is pathological.

nelly furtado is portugese. i don't particularly like her, but a lot of latinos do. did anyone say she's the voice of the "disenfranchised"? never heard that one. and who cares if that's what anyone says? don't get what you're trying to say about nelly furtado. they always market people who look hispanic directly at latinos. there are tons of latinos in the U.S. hence her success. is there something wrong with that?

The original poster made the point that the music industry is rigged so that Nickelback sells while Nelly furtado doesnt get the critical attention worthy of the "people's music" (I interpretted that to mean that the record industry/media disenfranchise the people by making it difficult to hear about "their" music). my point is simply that Nelly Furtado is someone who relies a great deal on marketting and the record industry to sustain her career (which was completely dead before her repackaging for the new album - her latinization if you will) and she has no dedicated fanbase. Nickelback, on the other hand, have built a loyal following that has bought and will continue to buy every turd they push out, with or without industry support. they have industry support because they are a sure bet, not vice-versa. I think its a pretty straightforward point.

really, what's your point in questioning me? you still haven't explained how Nelly Furtado being popular with Latinos affects the argument above in any way. you don't know even the most basic things about her or Nickelback... so what are you on about?

 

[soundslike1981]

I almost want to apologise for introducing Nickleback and Nelly Furtado (and Burial) to the argument, as I was really just making what I thought was a baldly sarcastic remark, a bit of a canard, with my invocation of them and the bogey-man Rockist-"Korporatist".

I find a rather irreconcilable hypocrisy in most Anti-rockism/Antirock-ism/Popism/Futurism, in that these isms provide no mechanism for dealing with the possibility of rock-as-pop, rock as a music (or a trope of "authenticity") as "artificial" as the ostensibly more knowing and hence more honest pop music posited as inherently (morally-musically) superior to rock. That is to say, if rock music becomes popular, there is some sort of false consciousness at work, some sort of reactionary anti-intellectualism-cum-authenticism that is impossible in any other form of music (despite established traditions of "true" jazz and "the real-hip-hop", etc.).

I personally despise Nickleback--their image, their packaging, their marketing, their music. And I happen to enjoy the Timbalanded Furtado, and local darlings Burial (though not with the fervour of most). But I recognise that my preferences are simply aesthetic--if analysed, I'd say at least the former two are equally "korporate kapital," equally likely to be designed-by-committee top-down artefacts of no particular "people" however "popular" each may be (and surely, though I guess I don't know, Nelly's "Promiscuous Girl" is getting more airplay in the States than any Nickleback tune, despite the dastardly Liberal Zionist Media. . . er, I mean, the Stoneagist Hippie Rockist Media [/sarcasm]).

It's telling that at least a few people here seemed unable to detect my offensively brattish parodying of the confusing, dominant line of thinking re: rock vs. the "peoples' music" and took me at some sort of face value. I guess I have to say it more pointedly: none of it is the peoples' music if it's marketed, if anyone bigger than a room of ten people hear it--and thank goodness. I don't care rock pop grime hyphy proto-neo-elecctro-klezmer--it's all part of "kapital" even if it's for free, and so ultimately it's a fairly useless criterion--the (accidental?) authentic-fetishising of honestly inauthentic pop music is stupid whether by the pure-pop camp or the dinosaur-rock camp (neither of which, thank god, seems to much exist outside of messageboards full of nerds like us with too much time and obsession on our hands).

Either "the people" honestly love their Nickleback and their Timberlake; or they're all programed sheep of the kapitalist-hippie News Corp-NME bourgeoisie--but they're in it together. Arguing over which one is selling out the right way grows tedious. For whomever asked if my preferences could really come down to the sounds alone, barring all the cultural/subcultural trappings---as far as I can tell (I could be suffering false consciousness, I guess I wouldn't know) indeed it does come down to what goes into my ears. I can enjoy all the rest in its own right, I can geek out of connections and reactions as much as anyone here--but at this point in my listening addiction, all that is truly tertiary in comparison to the visceral and intellectual effects of the sounds themselves. Maybe that makes me a dilettante, to simply "likes what I likes," but I'll take it over the endless side-choosing fanaticism engendered by the tropes and politics and economics surrounding the sounds.

As for the benefits of fanaticism--I think some people are using that word as I would use "passion," except that passion is never antithetical to eclecticism, and for myself it actually begat eclecticism. My passion for sound was too big for any one sound-box, so it inevitably spilled over and took me to new places. I feel like any sound-strain that becomes self-consciously "pure" is going to die out--genetic diversity, as it were, is as necessary in music as it is in nature for anything to thrive. So passionate eclecticism, not dogmatic fanaticism, is what allows music to change, grow, adapt, survive and thrive. Conflating fanaticism with progress is to me a surprisingly old-school view of history, wherein only the Biggest Men with the Biggest Cocks who win the Biggest Wars matter. Eclecticism is for me more in keeping with the more progressive view of cultural history, which recognises daily, quieter creativity as equally important as Big Moments of Destruction.

I'm saying none of this well, as it's not something I've particularly spent time sussing out in so many words for myself till now. But lets at least put our dear friend-enemies Nickleback and Nelly to bed for the discussion, and get back to the meat of the matter.

 

[Precious Cuts]

Fair enough. I took what you said at face value simply because I've heard so many people make the same points in complete seriousness.

I disagree on this. I think the fruits of fanatical/singular devotion to an aesthetic are generally of a higher quality and quantity than the fruits of eclecticism. I think its fine and almost necessary for the fanatical listener to be an eclectic, but I find that art and musicianship based on self-conscious eclecticism is generally weak.

Eclecticism vs. single minded passion/fanatacal pursuit of an idea, a few random examples off the top of my head:

hip hop albums of 96: Endtroducing vs. Reasonable Doubt
dubstep: Various Productions vs. Coki/Loefah
grime: roll deep's "in at the deep end" vs. Ice Rink riddim EPs
DJing: diplo vs. dj screw

 

[gek-opel]

It strikes me just now, reading the first 10 or so posts on here again, that one of the BIGGEST problems with Swears' point-of-view (and that of those who echo his) is that "rebellion" is somehow and essential component to what rock-and-roll is. That "rebellion" is the sum-total of rock's cultural significance.

No one today who listens to rock would put it in those terms. I can't think of one person I know who would try to say they like rock because it is inherently some form of tried-and-true cultural resistence and not an aesthetic preoccupation.

That idea is important earlier on in rock and pop music (see, nowadays rock isn't even the most important genre of popular music, and doesn't hold sway anymore really) when the repression of the 50s got so far out of balance that the Id came roaring out and tipped the scales back a little in its favor. Where there is less repression, sublimation gets less ferocious, and, well, things like pop music seem a little less sexually charged than they may have when people were a lot more prudish.

No, listening to rock isn't making anybody rebellious--but it never was. It was and still is a war waged on culturally endorsed and socially instituted repression. And isn't that what culture is, qua civilization? Civilization is always at the cost of repression, therefore, art (for Freud, art is where we finally discharge through 'sublimation' all of our repressed libido) will always be resonant.

Ever read Freud "On Civilization and Its Discontents", Swears? You'd like it.

So in other words pop=the most fundamental repression of all then? Exactly. Sublimation as safety valve, for the real wars that we will never be allowed to fight. What's necessary then is some system by which all this entertainment can be forever deleted, all the distractions, all para-struggles can be removed. Ejection from the pseudo-Eden looking glass universe of the oedi-pod.

 

[soundslike1981]

I disagree on this. I think the fruits of fanatical/singular devotion to an aesthetic are generally of a higher quality and quantity than the fruits of eclecticism. I think its fine and almost necessary for the fanatical listener to be an eclectic, but I find that art and musicianship based on self-conscious eclecticism is generally weak.

I guess I'm not talking about "self-conscious eclecticism," which I find hard to imagine, personally. It's not as though anyone says "today I must make my quota of Balinesian and Dub listening for the week". Eclecticism does not mean indifferent grab-baggery--eclecticism as you describe it is not passionate, which is how I know it.

Perhaps the argument is slightly different when discussing creators or appreciators. I consider myself pretty solidly amongst the latter, and fanatical (aka narrow) listening seems pretty boring. I guess there are creators who have their DNA twisted such that ideas will come to them ex nihilo, without broad listening--I know a few. But I still doubt that works for most people, who need both a grounding in some sort of tradition and open ears to other traditions to offer any compelling synthesis.

I'm not particularly obsessed with "newness," per se. I don't really believe in invention--usually just innovation. But even bluegrass traditionalists or members of a Philharmonic probably become better musicians if they listen broadly, rather than subscribing to one tiny sliver of what art has to offer.

How does fanaticism as you define it avoid dogma, burnout, boredom? What is the impetus for growth if one is fanatically attached to a singular sound? What makes it possible for traditions to form without becoming static museum pieces?

 

[Precious Cuts]

I guess I'm not talking about "self-conscious eclecticism," which I find hard to imagine, personally. It's not as though anyone says "today I must make my quota of Balinesian and Dub listening for the week". Eclecticism does not mean indifferent grab-baggery--eclecticism as you describe it is not passionate, which is how I know it.

I think a lot of people, such as Diplo, think precisely in that way. He basically DJs on a quota system. grab-bag-eclecticism also seems to be the idea behind the atrocity that was "In at the deep end"

How does fanaticism as you define it avoid dogma, burnout, boredom?

It doesn't. It plows right into it. I think you can measure the initial innovativeness of a musical idea directly in proportion to the dogma, boredom and burnout it eventually entails (blues, jazz, rock'n'roll, house, jungle, NY hiphop). I like Nietzsche's idea that the best way to measure the strength of a society/culture/ideal is by seeing how many parasites it can support, the amount of boredom, misery and decadence it can sustain before finally breaking.

What is the impetus for growth if one is fanatically attached to a singular sound?

New blood that doesn't identify with the old sound. You either innovate (Dr. Dre) or go down with the ship (DJ Premier)

What makes it possible for traditions to form without becoming static museum pieces?

This is wishing for the impossible IMO.

 

[DJ PIMP]

Civilization is always at the cost of repression, therefore, art (for Freud, art is where we finally discharge through 'sublimation' all of our repressed libido) will always be resonant.

For fun, and because I find Freud negative and dehumanising, I'll add some Jung... the figures and aesthetics in pop and art represent archetypes that are meant to be instructional and transcendent - a force for change within society and the individual that speaks through the medium of the unconscious.

However the Freudian critique of pop as sublimated libido is valid, but its more that the psychological drive of art has been so thoroughly and competently harnessed to the marketplace, rather than art being itself innately negative (repressed animal passion). One of the strongest ways that advertising works is by using symbols to show us the very things that are wrong with us, confronting us with our own repressed issues and then selling the quick-fix empty solution to the problem.

The only way that advertising can get away with being so cynical is because we ourselves are so cynical as to have become junkies for the irony implicit in the lie, thus there is a brand of chocolate called Heaven.

But in a more positive context the same archetypes would be instructive and inspirational.

Woebot: please consider renaming the forum to The League of Gentlemenly Soapboxers.

 

[swears]

Haha...saw an episode of The Simpsons today, where Mr Burns asks Lisa what she thinks of "the popular music scene".
Lisa replies that she thinks it just "serves as a distraction from more important issues".

 

[gek-opel]

Haha, I never thought I would echo Lisa Simpson. Hmm....

 

[DJ PIMP]

Again, appreciate the irony of that statement being made on The Simpsons. We are junkies for it. Constipated, impotent junkies.

 

[gek-opel]

Even worse, self reflexive constipated, impotent junkies