Obviously and I knew someone would bring this up but thats not what im addressing in this thread - its the complete lack of the kind of acts im referring to - in the current pop landscape that im on about, unless Im somehow missing them, in which case Id like to know about them.
Either you are very inarticulate or you are horrible at conveying your ideas clearly. The revolution starts with yourself, that is to get clear on what you are talking about and where you're coming from. Right now you are just ranting and it's sounding juvenile and muddled.
, raising money for aids is not rebel music flying in the face of the establishment, neither is 'achieving results'.
Serious question: are you saying that you don't want to produce positive change, but are simply looking to be anti- for the sake of being anti-?
No - in my opinion it is not the artists responsibility to be a successful charity figurehead - the yardstick for artistic achievement isnt how much money did they raise for X or how many government leaders did they meet - i dont give a fuck what they do for charity - its about the music and what it stands for. When you listen to Marley you dont think - 'wow he did so much for breast cancer'.
Its a barren, corporate and conformist landscape at the moment.
Either you are very inarticulate or you are horrible at conveying your ideas clearly. The revolution starts with yourself, that is to get clear on what you are talking about and where you're coming from. Right now you are just ranting and it's sounding juvenile and muddled.
The revolution starts with yourself? Mmmmm kay.
Let me re-iterate : in the current internet age where is the big indie pop group / artist creating great anti establishment music?
You know the revolution has been won when the revolutionaries are flying in private jets.
Which is also a sign that there needs to be another revolution.
The revolution has so not been won. Did anyone see theres an occupy album coming together? There is not one current artist on there. Surprisingly enough for a huge worldwide political movement there hasnt been a single new band or group to release a record voicing the occupy stance. Why is that?
Immortal Technique seems to be very involved but hes really marginal.
This chick I know went to see Rihanna with her niece. She told me Rihanna licensed some track for a commercial and during the performance of that song they dropped branded inflatables on the crowd. im like fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Poor niece. thats her 'rock and roll' deflowering? poor kid.
Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix licensing Purple Haze to Axe mid career?
"Hey woodstock - Purple haze was brought to you by Axe deodorant - put that purple haze in your pit."
Thats where we're at right now.
Surprisingly enough for a huge worldwide political movement there hasnt been a single new band or group to release a record voicing the occupy stance. Why is that?
Who would this even be in your mind? And why put so much stock in a bunch of 18-yr-old musicians to reshape the world? Not that I disagree with you're appraisal of the times,but really...
Our culture as a whole is only as intelligent as the magazines they sell at Target, and last I checked you can't even get TIME or Newsweek there so...
Surprisingly enough for a huge worldwide political movement there hasnt been a single new band or group to release a record voicing the occupy stance. Why is that?
Miley Cyrus I did not know about, although shes hardly at the forefront of a counterculture movement - honestly, shes just cashing in here, isnt she? And well known to be a cheesy corporate bitch. The Jay Z thing was a blatant cash in that provoked an outcry and the line has since been discontinued.
In fact, Its kind of disheartening to see jay z and miley cyrus being offered up here as examples of current voices of anti establishment - Im sure youll agree Crabmonger, they are both just obviously and cynically cashing in on something as if it were a trend or fad. Theres no political or intellectual current in their music to back up this sudden 'support' for occupy
Jay Z in particular is a complete venture capitalist who - despite his background - has always been elbow deep up corporate ass.
If there ever was a corporate shill, he's the one.
Jay-Z began selling the T-shirts for $22, but a spokeswoman for Rocawear revealed the company had no plans to share the profits with the 99%.
'At this time, we have not made an official commitment to monetarily support the movement,' the Rocawear rep said in a statement to the news website Gawker.com.
The statement ignited a fire storm of criticism, and the shirts were quickly removed from the Rocawear website.
Before they were pulled , TMZ spoke with one of the leaders of the Occupy movement named 'Grim' who said: 'Jay-Z, as talented as he is, has the political sensibility of a hood rat and is a scrotum.
'To attempt to profit off of the first important social moment of 50 years with an overpriced piece of cotton is an insult to the fight for economic civil rights known as #occupywallstreet.'
Who would this even be in your mind? And why put so much stock in a bunch of 18-yr-old musicians to reshape the world? Not that I disagree with you're appraisal of the times,but really....
Who would this even be? This is exactly what i want to know - its the whole point of the thread- what bugs me is why they arent there, especially in this day and age.
The fact that throughout modern history, pop and rock music have always been at the forefront of shaping and voicing dissent, or at least identifying with anti establishment, youth and counter culture, makes it all the more dismaying to notice this has seemingly completely evaporated from music over the last 20 years.
button said:
Our culture as a whole is only as intelligent as the magazines they sell at Target, and last I checked you can't even get TIME or Newsweek there so...
This is indicative of how corporations are succeeding more and more in creating an intellectual and ideological void for young people - incorporating popular culture, and in effect successfully and completely replacing ideology with consumerism.
We had Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Springsteen, Bob Marley, Punk, Public Enemy, Krs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
...and in effect successfully and completely replacing ideology with consumerism.
We had Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Springsteen, Bob Marley, Punk, Public Enemy, Krs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
These were all before my time, so I can't be sure how they were viewed at the time, but I would argue that any ideology present in their music has long since been absorbed into the consumerist sphere. How many times have albums by these been reissued in new boxes, in new formats, in new "remastered" versions, all for the purpose of getting you to buy the exact same shit again and again and again.
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
Since modern economics seems to be based upon the expectation that people will buy more and more stuff, I can't see that the corporate, consumerist way of life is going to change any time soon. But it would be nice to have, at the very least, an artist who could articulate this well, while at the same time aiming a big "fuck you" at whoever.
Thanks for posting these Rock, Hicks' is a voice that is sorely, sorely missed.
neil_something said:
staxwax said:
...and in effect successfully and completely replacing ideology with consumerism.
We had Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Springsteen, Bob Marley, Punk, Public Enemy, Krs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
These were all before my time, so I can't be sure how they were viewed at the time, but I would argue that any ideology present in their music has long since been absorbed into the consumerist sphere. How many times have albums by these been reissued in new boxes, in new formats, in new "remastered" versions, all for the purpose of getting you to buy the exact same shit again and again and again.
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
Since modern economics seems to be based upon the expectation that people will buy more and more stuff, I can't see that the corporate, consumerist way of life is going to change any time soon. But it would be nice to have, at the very least, an artist who could articulate this well, while at the same time aiming a big "fuck you" at whoever.
Thank you!
And yes, your point about the milking of said catalogs is good, but in their defense, this all happened well after these artists were in their prime, in some cases after split ups and deaths, when, I assume, others were in control of the catalogs.
Still, I would say that in most cases the message still stands.
Marley in particular is untarnished by wack rolling paper and tshirt branding attempts. The man is still a superhero all over Africa as anyone who's spent time there can attest and the music has lost none of its power.
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
that is some BS student sofa politics if ever I heard it. Classic naive dreamer shit. "He's rich so he can't really mean it". Go back to your bong and Che Guevara poster.
When I went to the first big Occupy demonstration in my city, one of the more striking things I noticed was that a good 70% of the thousand or so people there were between 35 and 55 and dressed like school teachers on their day off. There really weren't huge blocks of students or young creative-class artists, none of the hot shot local bands tied themselves into it. I barely even saw any crusty anarcho kids actually. Then, a few days later this article came out and sort of attempted to crystallize what has been going on in the creative youth culture for at least a decade now. Probably longer really...
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
that is some BS student sofa politics if ever I heard it. Classic naive dreamer shit. "He's rich so he can't really mean it". Go back to your bong and Che Guevara poster.
Please point out something tangible that he has achieved and I will take it all back.
Also, please point out where I'm dreaming about anything above? Bono is a prick. That's not a naive dream, that's an opinion. Also, a critical comment on consumer culture means I must be a pinko commie or a student stoner, right? Pfft.
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
that is some BS student sofa politics if ever I heard it. Classic naive dreamer shit. "He's rich so he can't really mean it". Go back to your bong and Che Guevara poster.
Sorry Tabira but Im going to have to burst your Bono bubble. Not to take anything away from U2 musically - some of the early stuff is great.
Last year, Bono's nonprofit ONE foundation was at the center of semi-scandal when it was revealed that in 2008 the organization raised $14,993,873 in public donations ??? of which only $184,732 (or just over ONE percent) was distributed to charities. Where did the rest go? Well, more than $8 million went to salaries for executives and employees at ONE. In response to the fusillade of criticism following these revelations, ONE spokesman Oliver Buston explained, "We don't provide programs on the ground. We're an advocacy and campaigning organization."
Daltrey slammed Bono as a ???tax dodger??? for shifting his group U2???s business base away from Ireland to the Netherlands. He sneered: ???I find it very interesting that people who spout socialism don???t want to pay for a socialist state.???
Anyway I could care less what they do with their money but for someone as preachy and self righteous as Bono this is 'a bit rich', wouldn't you say?
Their security team also beat down Irish protestors raising the tax issue at their Glastonbury gig.
Not so much about the free speech I guess.
Anyway - to get back to the point of this all, U2 are yesteryears news, I'm talking about THIS generations music.
Oh, and there is nothing wrong with bong smoking, that's hardly an insult. Che Guevara posters, on the other hand...
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
that is some BS student sofa politics if ever I heard it. Classic naive dreamer shit. "He's rich so he can't really mean it". Go back to your bong and Che Guevara poster.
Please point out something tangible that he has achieved and I will take it all back.
Also, please point out where I'm dreaming about anything above? Bono is a prick. That's not a naive dream, that's an opinion. Also, a critical comment on consumer culture means I must be a pinko commie or a student stoner, right? Pfft.
Look my point isn't that Bono has marked any great killer blow against poverty or whatever. He's just set up several charities and pressure groups and put a lot of his own money into issues like debt reduction and aids prevention. Saying he should give all his own money away is to me, well,....I won't get into that. My point is that the occupy movement which I support should stick to attacking the govt, banks and run away corporate culture rather than degenerate into the kind of incoherent carpet nihilism a la fuck steve jobs, fuck twitter , fuck facebook, and now fuck Bono (?) and fuck George Clooney (?) that was at the beginning of this thread. And I've nothing against occupy having a bold soundtrack and yes it's a fair observation that musicians today are more timid than before to stick thier necks out from the parapets....
When I went to the first big Occupy demonstration in my city, one of the more striking things I noticed was that a good 70% of the thousand or so people there were between 35 and 55 and dressed like school teachers on their day off. There really weren't huge blocks of students or young creative-class artists, none of the hot shot local bands tied themselves into it. I barely even saw any crusty anarcho kids actually. Then, a few days later this article came out and sort of attempted to crystallize what has been going on in the creative youth culture for at least a decade now. Probably longer really...
That's very interesting - the whole entrepreneurial generational thing has crossed my mind too - but somewhere i think piss poor education and whitewashing dissent in the media are more to blame for today's general disengagement, really.
Still, I thought I saw a good mix of young and old at Zucotti park when I was there.
My point is that the occupy movement which I support should stick to attacking the govt, banks and run away corporate culture rather than degenerate into the kind of incoherent carpet nihilism a la fuck steve jobs, fuck twitter , fuck facebook, and now fuck Bono (?) and fuck George Clooney (?) that was at the beginning of this thread. And I've nothing against occupy having a bold soundtrack and yes it's a fair observation that musicians today are more timid than before to stick thier necks out from the parapets....
Well ok.
I was coming on strong there but facebook and twitter delete and block users who post stuff that doesnt align with them and their corporate interests, so how are they going to be a platform for provocative art? They cant be with no tits allowed. Theyd block led zep album covers.
Bono and George 'Nespresso Whore' Clooney we've covered, and all the Steve Jobs adulation is an apple marketeers wet dream - people are so slavishly apple branded voluntarily that it does really disgust me. So saying fuck all of them is hardly carpet nihilism to me.
In a supposedly indie age with no need for distribution or mainstream media to break out and be a real success
Why is there no one out there with the balls to look corporate America in the eye and say FUCK YOU ?
FUCK YOU APPLE
FUCK YOU STEVE JOBS
FUCK YOU ABC CBS NBC FOX
FUCK YOU NEWS CORP
FUCK YOU TARGET WALL-MART AND STARBUCKS
FUCK YOU TWITTER AND FACEBOOK
FUCK YOU AND YOUR INOFFENSIVE PC SENSIBILITIES
Will there ever be anything seriously controversial and deep with some reach out there ever again?
Something that doesn't have, or hope to have, corporate dick all the way down its throat?
Did the bad guys really win?
What is the rawest, most offensive, brilliant, intelligent shit out there in the pop culture landscape today?
Good topic.
Y'know the thing about bad guys is that in movies you can tell who is good and who is bad. In real life it's a little challenging to identify. The bad guys make very convincing attractive arguments, and then usually the popular consensus will agree about the negative and the positive merits of the bad guys. Then the bad doesn't really seem SO bad..
In reality bad guy or good guy doesn't matter. Whoever is making the money is what people will pay attention to, and lean towards.
The other day a good friend of mine explained to me how he was just given a great corporate job position at a local power company. He's making more money now then I've ever made my entire life, and we're more or less at similar intelligence levels. He asked me why I didn't try to get corporate sponsorship to help fund the music that I make. He argued that I could easily work for a company like FATBURGER, and help them make a funky soundtrack. In turn they could pay us, license our music for advertising, and maybe even help setup a festival.
I gotta admit.. It's a good idea. I would be supporting a product that I definitely enjoy. As things stand right now.. I can barely afford to buy a Fatburger right now even if I wanted to. Often times you have to sell out to make ANY money. Especially now.
There's many issues that really upset me, but when I start ranting, people stop paying attention. Like you I don't give a fuck about TV, I don't like Apple, I don't like Walmart, Twitter or Starbucks. I use Facebook, but I'm not a slave to it. When I can't afford music. I'll download it, and I'll encourage anybody else as poor as I am to do the same.
An important rule you learn as a musicians is try not to burn down all your bridges.. You never know when you will directly influence people with your actions. I understand why young artists are not taking any risks.. It's simply easier to play it safe, and follow the herd. Even if it's leading you off a cliff.
The only thing radical about Dylan, Stones and Beatles was that our parents hated them.
True, that very very early on Dylan made a few pointed political songs.
Stones made a few vaguely violent songs.
The Beatles made a few songs about everybody loving everybody.
John Lennon made a few political statements about war being bad.
George Harrison did a benefit concert, there is controversy over whether the proceeds were distributed as promised.
That's about it for how political those groups were.
True none have become major corporate shills, but they are all richer than god so no need really.
But what made them so radical, so cutting edge, so important to my generation is that our parents hated them.
What are kids listening to now? American Idol? Rhianna? Solder Boy?
What is so attractive about these artists?
A: Parents hate them.
It's rather symptomatic of the times that you seem to be more concerned that there should be entertainment that merely talks about change, rather than looking at actual action in the real world.
-
IMO it's like the speech from [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas#The_.22wave_speech.22]Fear and Loathing[/url], when Hunter S Thompson describes the whole counter culture / revolutionary movement as a wave that washed across society, steadily gathering size and momentum, only to break and fall back.
To an extent the generations that followed have just been riding the remnants of that wave. But the generation that built that wave are now very much the establishment. So why expect the young people today, who've grown up in a time of relative peace and extreme prosperity, to react enact change in quite the same ways as their grandparents.
The premise of this thread is fucked. The pop mainstream is the visible face of corporate entertainment culture. That's not where you're going to find the social revolutionaries you're hoping for. Stop waiting for George Clooney to fall into your approval range and do something yourself.
It's rather symptomatic of the times that you seem to be more concerned that there should be entertainment that merely talks about change, rather than looking at actual action in the real world.
I think this is a good point.
However, for my part I just think it is sad that when so many people are effectively disenfranchised or unrepresented by their governments that there is no artist who can at least provide a voice, however futile or impotent it actually is, as a counterweight or as a focus of this expression. I think the symbolism of dissent is an important element to bolster actual changes.
It's rather symptomatic of the times that you seem to be more concerned that there should be entertainment that merely talks about change, rather than looking at actual action in the real world.
I think this is a good point.
However, for my part I just think it is sad that when so many people are effectively disenfranchised or unrepresented by their governments that there is no artist who can at least provide a voice, however futile or impotent it actually is, as a counterweight or as a focus of this expression. I think the symbolism of dissent is an important element to bolster actual changes.
It's rather symptomatic of the times that you seem to be more concerned that there should be entertainment that merely talks about change, rather than looking at actual action in the real world.
I think this is a good point.
However, for my part I just think it is sad that when so many people are effectively disenfranchised or unrepresented by their governments that there is no artist who can at least provide a voice, however futile or impotent it actually is, as a counterweight or as a focus of this expression. I think the symbolism of dissent is an important element to bolster actual changes.
Sure I'd like to believe it's important too. But there is definitely an argument to be made that these days such an act is more about comforting us through our apathy, than it is about actually inciting any real change.
People will post on Reddit how they wish that Rage Against the Machine would reform and play an Occupy support gig, because we're missing a voice like theirs right now. Like the unity of the shared entertainment of hearing the eloquent (if rather trite) musing of Zack de la Rocha is somehow more momentous than the actual movement.
Comments
Obviously and I knew someone would bring this up but thats not what im addressing in this thread - its the complete lack of the kind of acts im referring to - in the current pop landscape that im on about, unless Im somehow missing them, in which case Id like to know about them.
Which is also a sign that there needs to be another revolution.
Let me re-iterate : in the current internet age where is the big indie pop group / artist creating great anti establishment music?
That clear enough for you to grasp?
The revolution has so not been won. Did anyone see theres an occupy album coming together? There is not one current artist on there. Surprisingly enough for a huge worldwide political movement there hasnt been a single new band or group to release a record voicing the occupy stance. Why is that?
Immortal Technique seems to be very involved but hes really marginal.
This chick I know went to see Rihanna with her niece. She told me Rihanna licensed some track for a commercial and during the performance of that song they dropped branded inflatables on the crowd. im like fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck.
Poor niece. thats her 'rock and roll' deflowering? poor kid.
Can you imagine Jimi Hendrix licensing Purple Haze to Axe mid career?
"Hey woodstock - Purple haze was brought to you by Axe deodorant - put that purple haze in your pit."
Thats where we're at right now.
Who would this even be in your mind? And why put so much stock in a bunch of 18-yr-old musicians to reshape the world? Not that I disagree with you're appraisal of the times,but really...
Our culture as a whole is only as intelligent as the magazines they sell at Target, and last I checked you can't even get TIME or Newsweek there so...
Miley Cyrus I did not know about, although shes hardly at the forefront of a counterculture movement - honestly, shes just cashing in here, isnt she? And well known to be a cheesy corporate bitch. The Jay Z thing was a blatant cash in that provoked an outcry and the line has since been discontinued.
In fact, Its kind of disheartening to see jay z and miley cyrus being offered up here as examples of current voices of anti establishment - Im sure youll agree Crabmonger, they are both just obviously and cynically cashing in on something as if it were a trend or fad. Theres no political or intellectual current in their music to back up this sudden 'support' for occupy
Jay Z in particular is a complete venture capitalist who - despite his background - has always been elbow deep up corporate ass.
If there ever was a corporate shill, he's the one.
Jay-Z's Rocawear line drops Occupy Wall Street themed clothes after backlash
Who would this even be? This is exactly what i want to know - its the whole point of the thread- what bugs me is why they arent there, especially in this day and age.
The fact that throughout modern history, pop and rock music have always been at the forefront of shaping and voicing dissent, or at least identifying with anti establishment, youth and counter culture, makes it all the more dismaying to notice this has seemingly completely evaporated from music over the last 20 years.
This is indicative of how corporations are succeeding more and more in creating an intellectual and ideological void for young people - incorporating popular culture, and in effect successfully and completely replacing ideology with consumerism.
We had Dylan, the Stones, the Beatles, Springsteen, Bob Marley, Punk, Public Enemy, Krs, etc. etc. etc. etc.
They have Miley and Jay z? Poor kids.
These were all before my time, so I can't be sure how they were viewed at the time, but I would argue that any ideology present in their music has long since been absorbed into the consumerist sphere. How many times have albums by these been reissued in new boxes, in new formats, in new "remastered" versions, all for the purpose of getting you to buy the exact same shit again and again and again.
And whoever brought up Bono as an example of anti-corporate or anti-consumerist anything in this thread, have a word with yourself. A multimillionaire flying around the world to raise "awareness" of issues? Why doesn't he put his money where his mouth is if he is so fucking concerned? No, he'd rather ask us to dig deep into our pockets (after buying his albums, of course).
Since modern economics seems to be based upon the expectation that people will buy more and more stuff, I can't see that the corporate, consumerist way of life is going to change any time soon. But it would be nice to have, at the very least, an artist who could articulate this well, while at the same time aiming a big "fuck you" at whoever.
Thanks for posting these Rock, Hicks' is a voice that is sorely, sorely missed.
Thank you!
And yes, your point about the milking of said catalogs is good, but in their defense, this all happened well after these artists were in their prime, in some cases after split ups and deaths, when, I assume, others were in control of the catalogs.
Still, I would say that in most cases the message still stands.
Marley in particular is untarnished by wack rolling paper and tshirt branding attempts. The man is still a superhero all over Africa as anyone who's spent time there can attest and the music has lost none of its power.
that is some BS student sofa politics if ever I heard it. Classic naive dreamer shit. "He's rich so he can't really mean it". Go back to your bong and Che Guevara poster.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/opinion/sunday/the-entrepreneurial-generation.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=entrepreneur&st=Search
Please point out something tangible that he has achieved and I will take it all back.
Also, please point out where I'm dreaming about anything above? Bono is a prick. That's not a naive dream, that's an opinion. Also, a critical comment on consumer culture means I must be a pinko commie or a student stoner, right? Pfft.
Sorry Tabira but Im going to have to burst your Bono bubble. Not to take anything away from U2 musically - some of the early stuff is great.
U2 Do Not Practice What They Preach
U2 slammed by fellow aging rockers for tax evasion
Anyway I could care less what they do with their money but for someone as preachy and self righteous as Bono this is 'a bit rich', wouldn't you say?
Their security team also beat down Irish protestors raising the tax issue at their Glastonbury gig.
Not so much about the free speech I guess.
Anyway - to get back to the point of this all, U2 are yesteryears news, I'm talking about THIS generations music.
Oh, and there is nothing wrong with bong smoking, that's hardly an insult. Che Guevara posters, on the other hand...
Look my point isn't that Bono has marked any great killer blow against poverty or whatever. He's just set up several charities and pressure groups and put a lot of his own money into issues like debt reduction and aids prevention. Saying he should give all his own money away is to me, well,....I won't get into that. My point is that the occupy movement which I support should stick to attacking the govt, banks and run away corporate culture rather than degenerate into the kind of incoherent carpet nihilism a la fuck steve jobs, fuck twitter , fuck facebook, and now fuck Bono (?) and fuck George Clooney (?) that was at the beginning of this thread. And I've nothing against occupy having a bold soundtrack and yes it's a fair observation that musicians today are more timid than before to stick thier necks out from the parapets....
That's very interesting - the whole entrepreneurial generational thing has crossed my mind too - but somewhere i think piss poor education and whitewashing dissent in the media are more to blame for today's general disengagement, really.
Still, I thought I saw a good mix of young and old at Zucotti park when I was there.
Well ok.
I was coming on strong there but facebook and twitter delete and block users who post stuff that doesnt align with them and their corporate interests, so how are they going to be a platform for provocative art? They cant be with no tits allowed. Theyd block led zep album covers.
Bono and George 'Nespresso Whore' Clooney we've covered, and all the Steve Jobs adulation is an apple marketeers wet dream - people are so slavishly apple branded voluntarily that it does really disgust me. So saying fuck all of them is hardly carpet nihilism to me.
Good topic.
Y'know the thing about bad guys is that in movies you can tell who is good and who is bad. In real life it's a little challenging to identify. The bad guys make very convincing attractive arguments, and then usually the popular consensus will agree about the negative and the positive merits of the bad guys. Then the bad doesn't really seem SO bad..
In reality bad guy or good guy doesn't matter. Whoever is making the money is what people will pay attention to, and lean towards.
The other day a good friend of mine explained to me how he was just given a great corporate job position at a local power company. He's making more money now then I've ever made my entire life, and we're more or less at similar intelligence levels. He asked me why I didn't try to get corporate sponsorship to help fund the music that I make. He argued that I could easily work for a company like FATBURGER, and help them make a funky soundtrack. In turn they could pay us, license our music for advertising, and maybe even help setup a festival.
I gotta admit.. It's a good idea. I would be supporting a product that I definitely enjoy. As things stand right now.. I can barely afford to buy a Fatburger right now even if I wanted to. Often times you have to sell out to make ANY money. Especially now.
There's many issues that really upset me, but when I start ranting, people stop paying attention. Like you I don't give a fuck about TV, I don't like Apple, I don't like Walmart, Twitter or Starbucks. I use Facebook, but I'm not a slave to it. When I can't afford music. I'll download it, and I'll encourage anybody else as poor as I am to do the same.
An important rule you learn as a musicians is try not to burn down all your bridges.. You never know when you will directly influence people with your actions. I understand why young artists are not taking any risks.. It's simply easier to play it safe, and follow the herd. Even if it's leading you off a cliff.
- spidey
The only thing radical about Dylan, Stones and Beatles was that our parents hated them.
True, that very very early on Dylan made a few pointed political songs.
Stones made a few vaguely violent songs.
The Beatles made a few songs about everybody loving everybody.
John Lennon made a few political statements about war being bad.
George Harrison did a benefit concert, there is controversy over whether the proceeds were distributed as promised.
That's about it for how political those groups were.
True none have become major corporate shills, but they are all richer than god so no need really.
But what made them so radical, so cutting edge, so important to my generation is that our parents hated them.
What are kids listening to now? American Idol? Rhianna? Solder Boy?
What is so attractive about these artists?
A: Parents hate them.
Tour to be called Occupy Music Tour.
-
IMO it's like the speech from [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_and_Loathing_in_Las_Vegas#The_.22wave_speech.22]Fear and Loathing[/url], when Hunter S Thompson describes the whole counter culture / revolutionary movement as a wave that washed across society, steadily gathering size and momentum, only to break and fall back.
To an extent the generations that followed have just been riding the remnants of that wave. But the generation that built that wave are now very much the establishment. So why expect the young people today, who've grown up in a time of relative peace and extreme prosperity, to react enact change in quite the same ways as their grandparents.
I think this is a good point.
However, for my part I just think it is sad that when so many people are effectively disenfranchised or unrepresented by their governments that there is no artist who can at least provide a voice, however futile or impotent it actually is, as a counterweight or as a focus of this expression. I think the symbolism of dissent is an important element to bolster actual changes.
Hugh Grant though.
Alan Partridge representing.
Sure I'd like to believe it's important too. But there is definitely an argument to be made that these days such an act is more about comforting us through our apathy, than it is about actually inciting any real change.
People will post on Reddit how they wish that Rage Against the Machine would reform and play an Occupy support gig, because we're missing a voice like theirs right now. Like the unity of the shared entertainment of hearing the eloquent (if rather trite) musing of Zack de la Rocha is somehow more momentous than the actual movement.
I bought this used. From a salvation army.
Teaching kids to be angry and express their anger has been hard the last few years. It'll get better.