I think the truth is that the younger generation doesn't have the same relationship to corporate interests that my peer group (and the peer groups above me) did.
I think that probably has a lot to do with young people being employed by these companies to think up more cleverer marketing campaigns, use more with-it musical selections, and generally streamline product offerings so that they not only make the company a lot of money, but the general public (including counter-cultural revolutionary types) love them. Hence, the embrace of Apple amidst OWS and the like.
Back in our days, the corporate overlords were hopelessly out of it and patronizing. Now, they're getting it a little more right.
I find this thread totally pointless and cloying, but that's my best attempt at an answer.
Also, fwiw, kids in the hood have computers and shit. Redevelopment, despite its faults and shortcomings, has made the basic standard of living more betterer in a lot of places (despite obvious income inequality etc etc etc). Of course, not everywhere... but in a lot of places, it's not like it was. Dudes act like they want the Bronx to remain burnt out, so Immortal Technique can plug a SP1200 into a lamppost like this was 1976. CTFO
I find this thread totally pointless and cloying...
...
Of course, not everywhere... but in a lot of places, it's not like it was. Dudes act like they want the Bronx to remain burnt out, so Immortal Technique can plug a SP1200 into a lamppost like this was 1976.
This is basically the point I was trying to make up above - though not as clearly lol
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.
I really cant agree with this. Its not even a question of being a fan of these guys but the way you put it here is really understating the social/political influence these guys had in their time.
Their political influence (in the states) needs to be understated. Because it was nil. They influenced fashion, so there is that social influence, but the only thing they did for the "youth revolution" was provide a soundtrack.
I think musicians and actors today are far more likely to speak on political issues than these guys ever did. Dylan dropped politics like a hot potato in the early 60s and touched it again. The members of the Beatles and the Stones never said much more than platitudes like War Is Over If You Want It. I'd rather see George Clooney building a house.
Fuck, the Dixie Chicks are far more radical than Dylan, Stones, Beatles ever were.
I went to dozens to protest rallies in the 60s and early 70s. I heard Phil Ochs, I heard Joan Baez, I heard Henry the Fiddler, I heard The Ann Arbor Up, I heard Dick Gregory, I heard the fucking Beach Boys and Grass Roots, but I never heard no Beatles or Stones or Dylan because they were no part of any of that. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Face it, you are a romantic. You have romanticized your musical heroes. You have made them into revolutionary banner wavers. They were just a bunch of lads who wanted to get rich and get laid. And they did.
I find this thread totally pointless and cloying...
...
Of course, not everywhere... but in a lot of places, it's not like it was. Dudes act like they want the Bronx to remain burnt out, so Immortal Technique can plug a SP1200 into a lamppost like this was 1976.
This is basically the point I was trying to make up above - though not as clearly lol
Have the mother hen and the chosen son of SS truly descended from their lofty perch to sprinkle a little in thread haughty hand in hand zing?
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.
I really cant agree with this. Its not even a question of being a fan of these guys but the way you put it here is really understating the social/political influence these guys had in their time.
Their political influence (in the states) needs to be understated. Because it was nil. They influenced fashion, so there is that social influence, but the only thing they did for the "youth revolution" was provide a soundtrack.
I think musicians and actors today are far more likely to speak on political issues than these guys ever did. Dylan dropped politics like a hot potato in the early 60s and touched it again. The members of the Beatles and the Stones never said much more than platitudes like War Is Over If You Want It. I'd rather see George Clooney building a house.
Fuck, the Dixie Chicks are far more radical than Dylan, Stones, Beatles ever were.
I went to dozens to protest rallies in the 60s and early 70s. I heard Phil Ochs, I heard Joan Baez, I heard Henry the Fiddler, I heard The Ann Arbor Up, I heard Dick Gregory, I heard the fucking Beach Boys and Grass Roots, but I never heard no Beatles or Stones or Dylan because they were no part of any of that. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Face it, you are a romantic. You have romanticized your musical heroes. You have made them into revolutionary banner wavers. They were just a bunch of lads who wanted to get rich and get laid. And they did.
Actually no. Beatles and Stones etc were well before my time. I can appreciate them musically but to tell you the truth i dont even own many of their records. I was just offering them up here as perceived examples of artists providing a soundtrack and in some way shaping a definite counterculture movement in their day. But I wasn't there and the use of the phrase 'we had' was more to contrast previous generations with the current one.
So if you think i should have mentioned 'Phil Ochs, Joan Baez, Henry the Fiddler, The Ann Arbor Up, Dick Gregory, the fucking Beach Boys and Grass Roots' as better examples of actual and popular 'protest music' of that era, then fine. They can also serve as examples of the kind of voice I'm arguing seems to be missing from the current landscape.
Anyway I doubt kids today need burnt out projects as a reminder of whats wrong with their world when its probably pretty obvious to them that corporations, banks and politicians aren't looking out for their best interests. Miley Cyrus even made a song about it fer crissake.
Miley Cyrus even made a song about it fer crissake.
No, she didn't, which is why it's so pathetic that it got mentioned here with a straight face.
That song was released long before OWS started (it's about breaking up with a boyfriend), and was given a hastily edited video/remix in a blatant cash in attempt at OWS. After all, there's no better way to pad your bank account than to have one of your songs become an 'anthem'.
Seems to me that music and hollywood celebs are more involved, not less than the past.
Both with charity work, some of which is real, and speaking their minds.
In the next year we will see many of these people endorsing Obama or the other guy/gal. Not saying that is radical, but it is speaking out about what they believe.
The people who have given up all their autonomous dignity to be corporate shills are athletes.
You are unlikely to hear an athlete endorse a candidate or speaking out.
The Beatles only "political" song, TMK was Taxman. That song's about not wanting to pay taxes/taxes be too damn high, so that's more 1% than 99%. Maybe, All You Need is Love could be considered one, but not IMO.
As for the Stones, I can't really think of any political jams they did. Not sure why either of these groups are offered as examples to follow.
Dylan's catalog speaks for itself, doe.
I'd also like to offer up Green Day's "American Idiot" lp as contemporary Pop/political music in order to 1) show the OP that he's mistaken and/or 2) get laughed off the Strut.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,913 Posts
So much of this debate is just some ol' "singer not the song" bullshit.
All these radical, counter-revolutionary pop culture icons that are being talked up in this thread - whether they be Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, Public Enemy, who-the-fuck-ever - all came to you via a marketing department and a press office. All those acts only became as big and as "influential" as they did because they'd been co-opted by corporations or multinationals. Willingly, too, I'd imagine.
The perpetual whining of people who act like they want revolutionary art, when what they really want is to be able to pump their fist to some puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack, is one of the most boring sounds in the fucking world. Start your own fucking revolution instead of sitting on your arse waiting for someone to come along and sell you one.
So much of this debate is just some ol' "singer not the song" bullshit.
All these radical, counter-revolutionary pop culture icons that are being talked up in this thread - whether they be Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, Public Enemy, who-the-fuck-ever - all came to you via a marketing department and a press office. All those acts only became as big and as "influential" as they did because they'd been co-opted by corporations or multinationals. Willingly, too, I'd imagine.
The perpetual whining of people who act like they want revolutionary art, when what they really want is to be able to pump their fist to some puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack, is one of the most boring sounds in the fucking world. Start your own fucking revolution instead of sitting on your arse waiting for someone to come along and sell you one.
Which, to me, brings up the fact that I find 99% of 'political' music to be unbearable.
When it's done right, though, it can be a great thing.
the basic standard of living more betterer in a lot of places
i think this is the main reason we have no chuck d's anymore. things are bad but they aren't bad enough to push people towards action and that's how the younger generation has been castrated and pacified. as long as they can post pictures on facebook drinking dollar shots at the bar on a $20 cell phone they'll be content.
#oldmaninayoungmansbody
living more betterer in a lot of places? things arent bad enough to push people towards action ?
Horseleech said:
staxwax said:
Miley Cyrus even made a song about it fer crissake.
No, she didn't, which is why it's so pathetic that it got mentioned here with a straight face.
That song was released long before OWS started (it's about breaking up with a boyfriend), and was given a hastily edited video/remix in a blatant cash in attempt at OWS. After all, there's no better way to pad your bank account than to have one of your songs become an 'anthem'.
Thanks for pointing this out. I must admit having pegged the one cyrus as a devout sucker of satans cock from the get go.
DocMcCoy said:
So much of this debate is just some ol' "singer not the song" bullshit.
All these radical, counter-revolutionary pop culture icons that are being talked up in this thread - whether they be Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, Public Enemy, who-the-fuck-ever - all came to you via a marketing department and a press office. All those acts only became as big and as "influential" as they did because they'd been co-opted by corporations or multinationals. Willingly, too, I'd imagine.
The perpetual whining of people who act like they want revolutionary art, when what they really want is to be able to pump their fist to some puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack, is one of the most boring sounds in the fucking world. Start your own fucking revolution instead of sitting on your arse waiting for someone to come along and sell you one.
Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, and Public Enemy made puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack?
:ehhx2:
Pointing out these acts were all signed and sold Is a bullshit argument in this context - any art worth its salt has always been bought and sold throughout history. That doesnt negate the value or content of the greats in any way.
And it still doesn't change the fact that its perfectly legitimate to assert the contemporary musical landscape is suspiciously devoid of a healthy dose of politically charged angst - anger - radicalism, or for lack of a better word - edge - which have all proven to be fine ingredients for some fucking great and timeless music in the past.
I'd like anyone to name one single current artist with as much pull as 'Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, or Public Enemy' had, that can even hold a candle to any of their catalogs.
And no, im not interested in hearing about charity working girls in hijabs, hollywood heart throbs and their charities, or adhortations to 'start your own fucking revolution' - I'd just like to hear somehing new and significant speaking to the current times.
The general public overwhelmingly prefers to travel the cheesy corporate bitch path. Should we say anything to the fact that the people have clearly spoken?
In the 60s corporations had little interest in marketing to youth.
The target was out parents.
Naturally rock and roll was not part of marketing.
So what you guys are saying is that corporations are completely controlling music marketed to youth now, which they weren't doing as much or as successfully in the past? In which case you're agreeing with me.
The general public overwhelmingly prefers to travel the cheesy corporate bitch path. Should we say anything to the fact that the people have clearly spoken?
Evidently, the general public are being fucked over without a good soundtrack. Or perhaps, with the perfect soundtrack, namely jay z miley kanye et al. Which has been my point from the beginning.
In the 60s corporations had little interest in marketing to youth.
The target was out parents.
Naturally rock and roll was not part of marketing.
So what you guys are saying is that corporations are completely controlling music marketed to youth now, which they weren't doing as much or as successfully in the past? In which case you're agreeing with me.
First, lets separate what I said from what Jonny said. I was agreeing with him, then went on to make my own point.
But I did a poor job making it.
In the 1960s I don't think rock and roll bands were often asked to provide music for tv commercials, wear branded clothes or play corporate parties. Thus not selling out was easier. They did of course endorse Fender, Marshall, Gretch...
Today not only are the hippest musicians asked to provide music for big corporations, but that money is now a major revenue stream for many.
i think the government should make it illegal for corporations to market shit towards da youf and might as well get rid of parents while we're at it too
Comments
This is basically the point I was trying to make up above - though not as clearly lol
Their political influence (in the states) needs to be understated. Because it was nil. They influenced fashion, so there is that social influence, but the only thing they did for the "youth revolution" was provide a soundtrack.
I think musicians and actors today are far more likely to speak on political issues than these guys ever did. Dylan dropped politics like a hot potato in the early 60s and touched it again. The members of the Beatles and the Stones never said much more than platitudes like War Is Over If You Want It. I'd rather see George Clooney building a house.
Fuck, the Dixie Chicks are far more radical than Dylan, Stones, Beatles ever were.
I went to dozens to protest rallies in the 60s and early 70s. I heard Phil Ochs, I heard Joan Baez, I heard Henry the Fiddler, I heard The Ann Arbor Up, I heard Dick Gregory, I heard the fucking Beach Boys and Grass Roots, but I never heard no Beatles or Stones or Dylan because they were no part of any of that. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Face it, you are a romantic. You have romanticized your musical heroes. You have made them into revolutionary banner wavers. They were just a bunch of lads who wanted to get rich and get laid. And they did.
I don't know how you kept a straight face saying this. I understand your argument, but it does not mesh with my experiences at all.
Have the mother hen and the chosen son of SS truly descended from their lofty perch to sprinkle a little in thread haughty hand in hand zing?
Oh jjjjjjjoy!
In the 60s corporations had little interest in marketing to youth.
The target was out parents.
Naturally rock and roll was not part of marketing.
Sure they did, they just weren't very good at it.
Actually no. Beatles and Stones etc were well before my time. I can appreciate them musically but to tell you the truth i dont even own many of their records. I was just offering them up here as perceived examples of artists providing a soundtrack and in some way shaping a definite counterculture movement in their day. But I wasn't there and the use of the phrase 'we had' was more to contrast previous generations with the current one.
So if you think i should have mentioned 'Phil Ochs, Joan Baez, Henry the Fiddler, The Ann Arbor Up, Dick Gregory, the fucking Beach Boys and Grass Roots' as better examples of actual and popular 'protest music' of that era, then fine. They can also serve as examples of the kind of voice I'm arguing seems to be missing from the current landscape.
Anyway I doubt kids today need burnt out projects as a reminder of whats wrong with their world when its probably pretty obvious to them that corporations, banks and politicians aren't looking out for their best interests. Miley Cyrus even made a song about it fer crissake.
No, she didn't, which is why it's so pathetic that it got mentioned here with a straight face.
That song was released long before OWS started (it's about breaking up with a boyfriend), and was given a hastily edited video/remix in a blatant cash in attempt at OWS. After all, there's no better way to pad your bank account than to have one of your songs become an 'anthem'.
Both with charity work, some of which is real, and speaking their minds.
In the next year we will see many of these people endorsing Obama or the other guy/gal. Not saying that is radical, but it is speaking out about what they believe.
The people who have given up all their autonomous dignity to be corporate shills are athletes.
You are unlikely to hear an athlete endorse a candidate or speaking out.
As for the Stones, I can't really think of any political jams they did. Not sure why either of these groups are offered as examples to follow.
Dylan's catalog speaks for itself, doe.
I'd also like to offer up Green Day's "American Idiot" lp as contemporary Pop/political music in order to 1) show the OP that he's mistaken and/or 2) get laughed off the Strut.
All these radical, counter-revolutionary pop culture icons that are being talked up in this thread - whether they be Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, Public Enemy, who-the-fuck-ever - all came to you via a marketing department and a press office. All those acts only became as big and as "influential" as they did because they'd been co-opted by corporations or multinationals. Willingly, too, I'd imagine.
The perpetual whining of people who act like they want revolutionary art, when what they really want is to be able to pump their fist to some puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack, is one of the most boring sounds in the fucking world. Start your own fucking revolution instead of sitting on your arse waiting for someone to come along and sell you one.
ok
these are our concerns, dude
Still being hung onto like a comfort blanket for impotent rage.
Which, to me, brings up the fact that I find 99% of 'political' music to be unbearable.
When it's done right, though, it can be a great thing.
living more betterer in a lot of places? things arent bad enough to push people towards action ?
Thanks for pointing this out. I must admit having pegged the one cyrus as a devout sucker of satans cock from the get go.
Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, and Public Enemy made puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack?
:ehhx2:
Pointing out these acts were all signed and sold Is a bullshit argument in this context - any art worth its salt has always been bought and sold throughout history. That doesnt negate the value or content of the greats in any way.
And it still doesn't change the fact that its perfectly legitimate to assert the contemporary musical landscape is suspiciously devoid of a healthy dose of politically charged angst - anger - radicalism, or for lack of a better word - edge - which have all proven to be fine ingredients for some fucking great and timeless music in the past.
I'd like anyone to name one single current artist with as much pull as 'Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, or Public Enemy' had, that can even hold a candle to any of their catalogs.
And no, im not interested in hearing about charity working girls in hijabs, hollywood heart throbs and their charities, or adhortations to 'start your own fucking revolution' - I'd just like to hear somehing new and significant speaking to the current times.
This is soulstrut, after all.
Oh, this whole thing was just about music? Well then, I'm putting my gold bars in Chain & the Gang's basket:
So what you guys are saying is that corporations are completely controlling music marketed to youth now, which they weren't doing as much or as successfully in the past? In which case you're agreeing with me.
Evidently, the general public are being fucked over without a good soundtrack. Or perhaps, with the perfect soundtrack, namely jay z miley kanye et al. Which has been my point from the beginning.
You already know you're right so what's the point?
Whole shit is a vast oversimplification
Golden child out
First, lets separate what I said from what Jonny said. I was agreeing with him, then went on to make my own point.
But I did a poor job making it.
In the 1960s I don't think rock and roll bands were often asked to provide music for tv commercials, wear branded clothes or play corporate parties. Thus not selling out was easier. They did of course endorse Fender, Marshall, Gretch...
Today not only are the hippest musicians asked to provide music for big corporations, but that money is now a major revenue stream for many.
exhibit x
Reach being the key word here.
Im sure there is shit being done out there, but I dont see the same thing as the 50s thru the 90s being replicated.
"Reach" needed an industry. Its a new game now.