ehh, this thread is a mess. But at least it's interesting, unlike most of the recent threads that got posted.
I bought the louis ck thing, cause i liked the idea. It was better than the actual standup, though i am a fan of his.
I haven't bought a new major label record in years. I have a good friend who
works for one of the majors. It's almost scary what's happened to her (taste in music is the least casualty).
Dudes get mad about kids from Europe co-opting an art form cause they love it (see the thread from the other day), but when corporations do it, it's par of the course.
Sorry for the messed up formatting and the random impressions. I'm postin from a mobile, it's seven in the morning, I haven't slept a wink and I'm feeling paranoid as fusk.
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.
This isn't true at all - a lot of great art wasn't bought or sold at all, at least not in quantity. Some things just aren't marketable or interesting to a mass audience. A lot of popular political music oversimplifies complex issues, in the way teenagers tend to do. Some is good and some is bad, like a lot of pop music, but I'm not sure teenagers are rushing out to get the new PJ Harvey album (or are they?).
I feel some of the frustration behind this thread, but it's more with society in general than the state of pop music. Sometimes this thread just turns into old-Dylan-fan-territory. "I'm glad I didn't grow up today - at least we had good music". There's a lot of diversity in music today, you just can't go by mainstream radio and American Idol. That's like judging the 60s on Engelbert Humperdinck and Tom Jones.
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.
I feel some of the frustration behind this thread, but it's more with society in general than the state of pop music. Sometimes this thread just turns into old-Dylan-fan-territory. "I'm glad I didn't grow up today - at least we had good music". There's a lot of diversity in music today, you just can't go by mainstream radio and American Idol. That's like judging the 60s on Engelbert Humperdinck and Tom Jones.
this whole debate goes beyond music of course. Its sociological though no one would like to admit they're are having a sociology debate on Soul Strut....but face it, that's what this thread has morphed into,... and for good reason, cos saying that a thread about protest music is just about music is like saying that society doesn't exist or that music is in a vacuum.
I'll speak for myself and a few others I know. I think that a lot of people like me who listen to predominantly 40 year old music and who have a penchant for predominantly 40 year old cinema have a hard time accepting today's world because all of their cherished cultural references are in the past. As a result they have a tendancy to make stilted comparisons between today and then because they basically want time to stop and go into reverse ....yet the fact is that the undercurrents that drove the majority of protest music circa 1969 have little in common with the forces at play today. Back then it was all about rejecting tradition and its trappings : anti stifling conformity, anti parental authority, anti racism, anti sexism, anti religious dogma, anti social rigidity, pro-freedom of expression, pro choice, pro divorce, etc etc etc. To sum it up, it was nothing less than a SOCIAL REVOLUTION of once-in-a-century proportions, celebrating freedom, youth, racial and sexual liberation. It was expressed as a desire to party, dance, screw, take drugs, screw again and grow your hair long so as to say "I''m different to my father's generation". It was NATURAL therefore that music played a major part in this expression: to celebrate liberty you need to party and to party you need music. (it was very funky back then) The marriage was perfect. Music was the embodiment of this spirit.
Today, significant terrain has been won in these battles (yeah, yeah I'm not saying that racism and sexims don't still exist!). The issues are different, more hard-nosed, less romantic, less youth oriented, less celebratory at times.... and as a result music is perhaps less of a natural fit, no longer the primary medium of expression for the spirit of the times. Also the young are less "a part" from the old than they were back in 1969 when the average 40 year old would not wear jeans, smoke a joint or have body piercing. It's not the same world. The comparisons just don't apply that easily. We gotta stop copy-pasting history from our record sleaves onto the street today.
Good points there Tabira. It's also worth noting that in Germany for example, the youth in the 70s rebelled but a lot of music that came out of the "Krautrock scene" weren't overtly political, or especially popular. If musicians truly distance themselves from society, living in communes and the like, they'll most likely not reach a huge audience. But they might make great art the way they want to, and live on their own terms. Compare someone like Bob Marley with someone like Sun Ra. Sun Ra might not be known all over the world and have his face on t-shirts (except in music schools and in Williamsburg) but he lived his whole life making music on his own terms. It's a narrow definition of "success" as a (political) artist if you have to sell a lot and have "brand name recognition" to be accepted, and it's weird if success and marketing are the standards you judge artists on. And that's one of the reasons I feel frustrated in this day and age. But most likely, it was like that 40 years ago too.
Edit: Just went to Youtube to listen to "Nuclear War" and the top-rated comment is "Kreayshawn brought me here XD???". If you're looking for a silver lining.
"Krautrock scene" weren't overtly political, or especially popular. If musicians truly distance themselves from society, living in communes and the like, they'll most likely not reach a huge audience. But they might make great art the way they want to, and live on their own terms.
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
When his band recorded their album though, they did get the anti-terrorist squad coming round with guns drawn because locals had reported RAF types living there (it was a rural farmhouse/studio). So back in the early 70s just having long hair was shocking enough to get in trouble with the establishment. But the band was crazy young, not so much political as rebellious. My other uncle was the one who got in political trouble, spent time in jail, and he listens to very soft music to be honest.
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
The term "Krautrock" was first used by UK music critics to describe a scene that was going on in Germany. A great majority of the bands that fell into this "category" were German.
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
The term "Krautrock" was first used by UK music critics to describe a scene that was going on in Germany. A great majority of the bands that fell into this "category" were German.
"category" not scene. I asked my uncle about it recently. His band recorded at the same studio that Faust had just recorded their first, but they didn't really know them, or hang with them. They wanted to record there because Faust were fucking cool. Someone's parents probably paid for it. Is that a scene in the way that this thread has been about "scenes"? It was not a scene any more than "Williamsburg" is a genre of music. It's mental shorthand, helps us understand enough to form an opinion and move on. See for example, x hundred threads on here where we categorize all non-US Rap as hilarious garbage.
The most prolific music "scene" to come out of Williamsburg in the last 10+ years has been retro Soul and Afrobeat. 99% of the world would tell you that the correct answer is actually Bluegrass-Electro-Shoegazer or bands named after animals. And the future history books on the subject will no doubt support this view.
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
The term "Krautrock" was first used by UK music critics to describe a scene that was going on in Germany. A great majority of the bands that fell into this "category" were German.
I thought it was more accurately called Kosmische or maybe space rock (since "Kraut" can often be a pejorative term in the UK). And I can't really hear the wanting to sound like Led Zeppelin in the likes of Harmonia, Cluster, Achim Reichel, Manuel G??ttsching, Kraftwerk, Amon Duul and so on. Far too much electronic experimentation.
(And speaking of Manuel G??ttsching, it was the 30th birthday of the recording of "E2-E4" yesterday. Love that record.)
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
The term "Krautrock" was first used by UK music critics to describe a scene that was going on in Germany. A great majority of the bands that fell into this "category" were German.
I thought it was more accurately called Kosmische or maybe space rock (since "Kraut" can often be a pejorative term in the UK). And I can't really hear the wanting to sound like Led Zeppelin in the likes of Harmonia, Cluster, Achim Reichel, Manuel G??ttsching, Kraftwerk, Amon Duul and so on. Far too much electronic experimentation.
(And speaking of Manuel G??ttsching, it was the 30th birthday of the recording of "E2-E4" yesterday. Love that record.)
I think E2-E4 having the keyowrd "Kraut" is bizarre - and one of the reasons it eluded me for so long... I was looking for Balearic! That record came out in the 80s, Faust recorded in 70/71. They should not be lumped together as a "scene". I mentioned Led Zepp because my uncle told me that Jimmy Paige referenced their 16 year old guitarist as one to watch and the lad was over the moon. My uncle also said the lad solo'd far too much on their first LP.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
What I wrote;
DocMcCoy said:
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.
What staxwax read;
staxwax said:
Marley, Kurt Cobain, the Sex Pistols, and Public Enemy made puddle-deep "YEAH! FUCKIN' A, DUDE!" rhetoric with an edgy, "challenging" soundtrack?
:ehhx2:
staxwax said:
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.
Why is it that people still get hung up on the notion of "selling out", then? Selling out what? And to whom? Music has been "corporate" for decades. The only difference now is that it's more open, or flagrant, if you like. Personally, I agree that it "doesn't negate the value or content" of the music, but not everyone felt that way when The Clash signed to CBS (as Columbia was known in the UK). When they talked about "turning rebellion into money", or sang "I'm so bored with the USA", there was no shortage of people pointing out that they were doing this purely through the largesse of a US multinational corporation (which was my initial point, the one you misquoted). Nice little irony there, if you like that kind of thing.
staxwax said:
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.
"Suspiciously"? I do hope you're not suggesting that this is some lizard-people conspiracy type shit, and the industry is somehow preventing this "politically charged" music from being made or heard? The Man is tryin' to stop The Kids from Rockin', that kind of thing? C'mon, son. This notion that music has to have an explicit political agenda to be worth anything is bullshit. There has been plenty of "fucking great and timeless music" that's in no way diminished by the absence of a political agenda, from The Clapping Song to Don't Fear The Reaper and beyond, so it's hardly a prerequisite. And what about those completely apolitical songs that the times themselves imbue with a political resonance, like Dancin' In The Street? Political music that isn't even political. Work that one out. How about James Brown? Politically conservative, musically radical. Maybe that's the trick - make the music good first. I'd much rather read a book than listen to a minute of Immortal Technique or Lupe Fiasco or any of those other hectoring, earnest bores who are forever being held up as heirs to PE's mantle.
staxwax said:
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.
Now we're getting to the nub of it - the new shit isn't as good as the old shit. A true Soul Strut perennial.
Maybe there isn't ever going to be one, and you'll just have to look elsewhere for your radicalism fix. I doubt it's even possible anymore - popular culture is so accelerated nowadays that there isn't the time for anything to grow at its own pace. Whatever comes next will be sucked up and spat out before it's had time to get its shoes dirty, much less change the world.
I think I'd settle for some simply subversive music at the moment, some pop music in the vein of Frankie Goes To Hollywood "Relax" or even The Shamen "Ebeneezer Goode". Who is out there nowadays telling kids how best to enjoy gay sex or that drugs are great? Or are these things now taken as accepted wisdom?
Who is out they nowadays telling kids how best to enjoy gay sex or that drugs are great? Or are these things now taken as accepted wisdom?
I think music covered the joys of drugs a while ago, but the whole gay sex/gender-bending thing is pretty much pablum in pop culture, no?
(Madonna / Annie Lennox / Marilyn Manson / eye-liner emo / Lady Gaga)
Few decades ago you just had to have long hair, drink alcool, play guitar and fuck teens to be against
the "system" and become a "rebell hero" as an artist.
Now it will imply to self release your music (which cost a certain amont of $), organize
your own tour, promotion, say fuck to facebook and twitter, and stay a perfect anonymous for most people....
This world is fuck up and we are currently living the end of it.
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.
Also resulting in popular music becoming completely inoffensive to ' the powers that be' ?
batmon said:
Will there ever be anything seriously controversial and deep with some reach out there ever again?
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.
Yes - you'd expect the internet would have made it possible for a more radical sound to reach a -really- large audience - quite surprising that it hasn't happened yet really.
studiode said:
Neil Young/Louis CK/other old white guys continue to son y'all (While using a corporate-backed prior sponsor):
"Ain't singin' for Pepsi
Ain't singin' for Coke
I don't sing for nobody
Makes me look like a joke"
- Neil Young
Why is it its only old guys that still have that 'radical temperament'
Why aren't there any stars of this generation taking this approach?
Mjukis said:
I feel some of the frustration behind this thread, but it's more with society in general than the state of pop music. Sometimes this thread just turns into old-Dylan-fan-territory. "I'm glad I didn't grow up today - at least we had good music". There's a lot of diversity in music today, you just can't go by mainstream radio and American Idol. That's like judging the 60s on Engelbert Humperdinck and Tom Jones.
If popular music is a reflection of society in general - it would follow that we're living in a more politically meek and materialistic age than before - but that's really not true at all if you look at society in general. Maybe music has just become more diverse and niche driven, making the mainstream that much more bland and less 'radical' than it ever was before.
tabira said:
The issues are different, more hard-nosed, less romantic, less youth oriented, less celebratory at times.... and as a result music is perhaps less of a natural fit, no longer the primary medium of expression for the spirit of the times. Also the young are less "a part" from the old than they were back in 1969 when the average 40 year old would not wear jeans, smoke a joint or have body piercing. It's not the same world. The comparisons just don't apply that easily.
That's actually a very interesting point. Could this be the reason the average teenager just isn't seeking out 'radical' music anymore when flipping on the tv or car radio?
DocMcCoy said:
"Suspiciously"? I do hope you're not suggesting that this is some lizard-people conspiracy type shit, and the industry is somehow preventing this "politically charged" music from being made or heard? The Man is tryin' to stop The Kids from Rockin', that kind of thing? C'mon, son. This notion that music has to have an explicit political agenda to be worth anything is bullshit.
I'm not saying music should have a political agenda to be worth anything at all - and I agree with your points about the meters and James etc.
I don't believe in conspiracies at all - maybe it just boils down to me finding it weird that there doesn't seem to be any politically charged pop music out there at the moment. And a general feeling of disgust at how blatantly commercial and a-political (a-moral?) pop music has become.
DocMcCoy said:
staxwax said:
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.
Now we're getting to the nub of it - the new shit isn't as good as the old shit. A true Soul Strut perennial.
Maybe there isn't ever going to be one, and you'll just have to look elsewhere for your radicalism fix. I doubt it's even possible anymore - popular culture is so accelerated nowadays that there isn't the time for anything to grow at its own pace. Whatever comes next will be sucked up and spat out before it's had time to get its shoes dirty, much less change the world.
It seems like a weird notion though: popular culture is so accelerated that there's no more room/time for music criticizing society or economics/politics specifically. Think about it - how many songs have there been in the past about how much it sucks to be poor - without the pretense of intellect or politics being involved at all? Seems to be none of that going on anymore. There's more shame attached to being poor - or not having 'things' - than ever, it seems.
Like you've argued yourself - protest or provocative music doesn't have to be political per se. I guess Gaga's subtle gender-bending is the modern day equivalent of Elvis' grinding or James' raw sex attitude. Is there anyone on here that will admit to really liking Gaga's actual music though?
neil_something said:
I think I'd settle for some simply subversive music at the moment, some pop music in the vein of Frankie Goes To Hollywood "Relax" or even The Shamen "Ebeneezer Goode".
I think there still quite a bit of sex and drugs themes in pop that attempt to be a little subversive. Some weed, x, and gay declarations here and there, but its more of a nod or a pose than a radical stance. I think Tabira is right about there being far less generational conflict about these themes now than before.
If only they had some sort of pop music theme song, their efforts would seem so much more worthwhile.
Its probably just around the corner. I hope Bono isn't penning it.
Marilyn Manson could be the last example of a truly huge artist that was really out and out subversive and quite political. I really disliked his music though.
Come to think of it, Coldplay would be a perfectly positioned band to do some pretty angry, daring - and good - music with a political / radical edge and reach a massive audience. I wouldn't put it past them. They're pretty much all about being a little sad and in love though, aren't they? For a band that big, I don't think they suck musically, I'll give them that.
If we are talking about motivating the unmotivated and apathetic youth, we're not the ones who need to like the music.
How huge Manson and Gaga's fan bases are is obvious.
edit - I was actually floored when I heard how pedestrian Gaga's music is compared to her image, but that's perfect for wider dissemination
of her message.
Coldplay over Radiohead? Radiohead's free record (that came out before Coldplay's) gives them an edge if we're still talking about anti-corporate. And their music is better.
If we are talking about motivating the unmotivated and apathetic youth, we're not the ones who need to like the music.
How huge Manson and Gaga's fan bases are is obvious.
edit - I was actually floored when I heard how pedestrian Gaga's music is compared to her image, but that's perfect for wider dissemination
of her message.
Coldplay over Radiohead? Radiohead's free record (that came out before Coldplay's) gives them an edge if we're still talking about anti-corporate. And their music is better.
Are Radiohead the biggest band to give away their last album for free? That was a great and ballsy move imo. I never really got around to listening to a lot of Radiohead.
I think Coldplay probably have a larger fanbase.
. Is there anyone on here that will admit to really liking Gaga's actual music though?
No.
And for good reason.
We are too old and too establishment to like her music.
In fact her music is careful crafted to turn us off.
She may or may not be a cheesy corporate bitch, but her music gives rebellious youth something to dance to that their parents will hate.
??
She makes some of the most parent-friendly music out there right now while?/despite? being Cher/Liza Minnelli/a bunch of MOR singers whose name I don't know/Freddie Mercury* rolled up into a Matthew Barney/Purple Magazine/minor in performance art disco ball.
I agree with the Elton John mention, but - and I don't want to derail - but a woman who is willing to look 'ugly' in 2011 kinda trumps a dude in funny sunglasses in 1973.
*Lady Gaga fronting Queen is one of the best ideas I've heard of in a long time.
Comments
I bought the louis ck thing, cause i liked the idea. It was better than the actual standup, though i am a fan of his.
I haven't bought a new major label record in years. I have a good friend who
works for one of the majors. It's almost scary what's happened to her (taste in music is the least casualty).
Dudes get mad about kids from Europe co-opting an art form cause they love it (see the thread from the other day), but when corporations do it, it's par of the course.
Sorry for the messed up formatting and the random impressions. I'm postin from a mobile, it's seven in the morning, I haven't slept a wink and I'm feeling paranoid as fusk.
This isn't true at all - a lot of great art wasn't bought or sold at all, at least not in quantity. Some things just aren't marketable or interesting to a mass audience. A lot of popular political music oversimplifies complex issues, in the way teenagers tend to do. Some is good and some is bad, like a lot of pop music, but I'm not sure teenagers are rushing out to get the new PJ Harvey album (or are they?).
I feel some of the frustration behind this thread, but it's more with society in general than the state of pop music. Sometimes this thread just turns into old-Dylan-fan-territory. "I'm glad I didn't grow up today - at least we had good music". There's a lot of diversity in music today, you just can't go by mainstream radio and American Idol. That's like judging the 60s on Engelbert Humperdinck and Tom Jones.
this whole debate goes beyond music of course. Its sociological though no one would like to admit they're are having a sociology debate on Soul Strut....but face it, that's what this thread has morphed into,... and for good reason, cos saying that a thread about protest music is just about music is like saying that society doesn't exist or that music is in a vacuum.
I'll speak for myself and a few others I know. I think that a lot of people like me who listen to predominantly 40 year old music and who have a penchant for predominantly 40 year old cinema have a hard time accepting today's world because all of their cherished cultural references are in the past. As a result they have a tendancy to make stilted comparisons between today and then because they basically want time to stop and go into reverse ....yet the fact is that the undercurrents that drove the majority of protest music circa 1969 have little in common with the forces at play today. Back then it was all about rejecting tradition and its trappings : anti stifling conformity, anti parental authority, anti racism, anti sexism, anti religious dogma, anti social rigidity, pro-freedom of expression, pro choice, pro divorce, etc etc etc. To sum it up, it was nothing less than a SOCIAL REVOLUTION of once-in-a-century proportions, celebrating freedom, youth, racial and sexual liberation. It was expressed as a desire to party, dance, screw, take drugs, screw again and grow your hair long so as to say "I''m different to my father's generation". It was NATURAL therefore that music played a major part in this expression: to celebrate liberty you need to party and to party you need music. (it was very funky back then) The marriage was perfect. Music was the embodiment of this spirit.
Today, significant terrain has been won in these battles (yeah, yeah I'm not saying that racism and sexims don't still exist!). The issues are different, more hard-nosed, less romantic, less youth oriented, less celebratory at times.... and as a result music is perhaps less of a natural fit, no longer the primary medium of expression for the spirit of the times. Also the young are less "a part" from the old than they were back in 1969 when the average 40 year old would not wear jeans, smoke a joint or have body piercing. It's not the same world. The comparisons just don't apply that easily. We gotta stop copy-pasting history from our record sleaves onto the street today.
Edit: Just went to Youtube to listen to "Nuclear War" and the top-rated comment is "Kreayshawn brought me here XD???". If you're looking for a silver lining.
Furthermore, there was no "Krautrock scene" in Germany. It happend in England. As my uncle put it, it was invented by English youth wanting to "understand" the children of the Nazi generation. But the German kids were just trying to sound like Led Zepp.
When his band recorded their album though, they did get the anti-terrorist squad coming round with guns drawn because locals had reported RAF types living there (it was a rural farmhouse/studio). So back in the early 70s just having long hair was shocking enough to get in trouble with the establishment. But the band was crazy young, not so much political as rebellious. My other uncle was the one who got in political trouble, spent time in jail, and he listens to very soft music to be honest.
The term "Krautrock" was first used by UK music critics to describe a scene that was going on in Germany. A great majority of the bands that fell into this "category" were German.
"category" not scene. I asked my uncle about it recently. His band recorded at the same studio that Faust had just recorded their first, but they didn't really know them, or hang with them. They wanted to record there because Faust were fucking cool. Someone's parents probably paid for it. Is that a scene in the way that this thread has been about "scenes"? It was not a scene any more than "Williamsburg" is a genre of music. It's mental shorthand, helps us understand enough to form an opinion and move on. See for example, x hundred threads on here where we categorize all non-US Rap as hilarious garbage.
The most prolific music "scene" to come out of Williamsburg in the last 10+ years has been retro Soul and Afrobeat. 99% of the world would tell you that the correct answer is actually Bluegrass-Electro-Shoegazer or bands named after animals. And the future history books on the subject will no doubt support this view.
Doesn't it hurt to jerk off for so long?
I thought it was more accurately called Kosmische or maybe space rock (since "Kraut" can often be a pejorative term in the UK). And I can't really hear the wanting to sound like Led Zeppelin in the likes of Harmonia, Cluster, Achim Reichel, Manuel G??ttsching, Kraftwerk, Amon Duul and so on. Far too much electronic experimentation.
(And speaking of Manuel G??ttsching, it was the 30th birthday of the recording of "E2-E4" yesterday. Love that record.)
I think E2-E4 having the keyowrd "Kraut" is bizarre - and one of the reasons it eluded me for so long... I was looking for Balearic! That record came out in the 80s, Faust recorded in 70/71. They should not be lumped together as a "scene". I mentioned Led Zepp because my uncle told me that Jimmy Paige referenced their 16 year old guitarist as one to watch and the lad was over the moon. My uncle also said the lad solo'd far too much on their first LP.
What staxwax read;
Why is it that people still get hung up on the notion of "selling out", then? Selling out what? And to whom? Music has been "corporate" for decades. The only difference now is that it's more open, or flagrant, if you like. Personally, I agree that it "doesn't negate the value or content" of the music, but not everyone felt that way when The Clash signed to CBS (as Columbia was known in the UK). When they talked about "turning rebellion into money", or sang "I'm so bored with the USA", there was no shortage of people pointing out that they were doing this purely through the largesse of a US multinational corporation (which was my initial point, the one you misquoted). Nice little irony there, if you like that kind of thing.
"Suspiciously"? I do hope you're not suggesting that this is some lizard-people conspiracy type shit, and the industry is somehow preventing this "politically charged" music from being made or heard? The Man is tryin' to stop The Kids from Rockin', that kind of thing? C'mon, son. This notion that music has to have an explicit political agenda to be worth anything is bullshit. There has been plenty of "fucking great and timeless music" that's in no way diminished by the absence of a political agenda, from The Clapping Song to Don't Fear The Reaper and beyond, so it's hardly a prerequisite. And what about those completely apolitical songs that the times themselves imbue with a political resonance, like Dancin' In The Street? Political music that isn't even political. Work that one out. How about James Brown? Politically conservative, musically radical. Maybe that's the trick - make the music good first. I'd much rather read a book than listen to a minute of Immortal Technique or Lupe Fiasco or any of those other hectoring, earnest bores who are forever being held up as heirs to PE's mantle.
Now we're getting to the nub of it - the new shit isn't as good as the old shit. A true Soul Strut perennial.
Maybe there isn't ever going to be one, and you'll just have to look elsewhere for your radicalism fix. I doubt it's even possible anymore - popular culture is so accelerated nowadays that there isn't the time for anything to grow at its own pace. Whatever comes next will be sucked up and spat out before it's had time to get its shoes dirty, much less change the world.
I want my 15 minutes back.
(Original, I know...)
I think music covered the joys of drugs a while ago, but the whole gay sex/gender-bending thing is pretty much pablum in pop culture, no?
(Madonna / Annie Lennox / Marilyn Manson / eye-liner emo / Lady Gaga)
the "system" and become a "rebell hero" as an artist.
Now it will imply to self release your music (which cost a certain amont of $), organize
your own tour, promotion, say fuck to facebook and twitter, and stay a perfect anonymous for most people....
This world is fuck up and we are currently living the end of it.
Stop complaining, buy pop corn and watch.
http://www.time.com/time/person-of-the-year/2011/?iid=moreontime
If only they had some sort of pop music theme song, their efforts would seem so much more worthwhile.
Also resulting in popular music becoming completely inoffensive to ' the powers that be' ?
Yes - you'd expect the internet would have made it possible for a more radical sound to reach a -really- large audience - quite surprising that it hasn't happened yet really.
Why is it its only old guys that still have that 'radical temperament'
Why aren't there any stars of this generation taking this approach?
If popular music is a reflection of society in general - it would follow that we're living in a more politically meek and materialistic age than before - but that's really not true at all if you look at society in general. Maybe music has just become more diverse and niche driven, making the mainstream that much more bland and less 'radical' than it ever was before.
That's actually a very interesting point. Could this be the reason the average teenager just isn't seeking out 'radical' music anymore when flipping on the tv or car radio?
I'm not saying music should have a political agenda to be worth anything at all - and I agree with your points about the meters and James etc.
I don't believe in conspiracies at all - maybe it just boils down to me finding it weird that there doesn't seem to be any politically charged pop music out there at the moment. And a general feeling of disgust at how blatantly commercial and a-political (a-moral?) pop music has become.
It seems like a weird notion though: popular culture is so accelerated that there's no more room/time for music criticizing society or economics/politics specifically. Think about it - how many songs have there been in the past about how much it sucks to be poor - without the pretense of intellect or politics being involved at all? Seems to be none of that going on anymore. There's more shame attached to being poor - or not having 'things' - than ever, it seems.
Like you've argued yourself - protest or provocative music doesn't have to be political per se. I guess Gaga's subtle gender-bending is the modern day equivalent of Elvis' grinding or James' raw sex attitude. Is there anyone on here that will admit to really liking Gaga's actual music though?
I think there still quite a bit of sex and drugs themes in pop that attempt to be a little subversive. Some weed, x, and gay declarations here and there, but its more of a nod or a pose than a radical stance. I think Tabira is right about there being far less generational conflict about these themes now than before.
Its probably just around the corner. I hope Bono isn't penning it.
Marilyn Manson could be the last example of a truly huge artist that was really out and out subversive and quite political. I really disliked his music though.
Come to think of it, Coldplay would be a perfectly positioned band to do some pretty angry, daring - and good - music with a political / radical edge and reach a massive audience. I wouldn't put it past them. They're pretty much all about being a little sad and in love though, aren't they? For a band that big, I don't think they suck musically, I'll give them that.
How huge Manson and Gaga's fan bases are is obvious.
edit - I was actually floored when I heard how pedestrian Gaga's music is compared to her image, but that's perfect for wider dissemination
of her message.
Coldplay over Radiohead? Radiohead's free record (that came out before Coldplay's) gives them an edge if we're still talking about anti-corporate. And their music is better.
^
THIS x1000000000
Are Radiohead the biggest band to give away their last album for free? That was a great and ballsy move imo. I never really got around to listening to a lot of Radiohead.
I think Coldplay probably have a larger fanbase.
Ha!!! Funny.
You guys clearly aren't old enough to remember Elton John
This, plus Elton's music output is pretty high level overall IMO.
Regarding the topic on hand, Okem's post (with the Time cover) wraps this thread up for me.
No.
And for good reason.
We are too old and too establishment to like her music.
In fact her music is careful crafted to turn us off.
She may or may not be a cheesy corporate bitch, but her music gives rebellious youth something to dance to that their parents will hate.
??
She makes some of the most parent-friendly music out there right now while?/despite? being Cher/Liza Minnelli/a bunch of MOR singers whose name I don't know/Freddie Mercury* rolled up into a Matthew Barney/Purple Magazine/minor in performance art disco ball.
I agree with the Elton John mention, but - and I don't want to derail - but a woman who is willing to look 'ugly' in 2011 kinda trumps a dude in funny sunglasses in 1973.
*Lady Gaga fronting Queen is one of the best ideas I've heard of in a long time.