Jump to content

PaulEdwardWagemann

Members
  • Posts

    183
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PaulEdwardWagemann

  1. Paul Nelson, RollingStone, issue 259

    First of all, Paul Nelson = an american (and youve already established that most americans view of the SPs is wrong)...

    Second of all, Rollingstone = embarrassing shill for the Corporate music industries slave masters...

    The Ramones, and other early punk bands were not overly concerned about politics. Posing as politacl spokemen for a generation was in fact a large part of what they were against. The Sex Pistols killed that aspect of Punk by trying to come off as poltical. This may have caused a stir in the UK, but in the US their politics did not matter one iota. They were seen as a novelty, freaks who cut themselves up on stage and talked in funny accents--much more entertaining than Jackson Browne and the Eagles feel good 'sensative guy' rock that was dominating the radio waves in thelate 70s....

  2. 3) (perhaps most significantly) the extent of their impact upon British music/art and society cannot be understated. We are not discussing a mere passing fashion, (even less a marginal sub-culture, a la US punk)so much as a watershed moment in social/cultural history.

    The latter point seems to be something you either refuse to believe or do not perceive as significant, since I have emphasised it repeatedly, without acknowledgement.

    I personally find it hard to believe that your reading of "England's Dreaming" has not led you to a better understanding of British society in the late 70s, and the significant position of The Sex Pistols within that context.

    This ought to be good. Just how did the Sex Pistols change England?

  3. BF, Just becasue most americans think something, that doesnt mean its true (Weapons of mass destructin ring a bell?) Americans for the most part are pretty ignorant in fact. The truth of the matter is that Punk in the US was already past its prime by the time the Sex Pistols came over here.

    As for your post about 12"--what's your point? And how does this detract from the fact that the Romones were innovaters and the SPs were immitators???

  4. So Johhny Rotten would say the Sex Pistols killed punk Rock, but you say they didnt--and exactly why should we believe you over him?

    Also McLaren says the Sex Pistols were fabricated, but you say they werent. Again why should we believe you over someone who was actually in the thick of it all?

    Last of all, you say Punk Rock is still alive?!?

    May I ask you to give me your defintion of punk rock and then ask you for some examples of how it is still alive?

  5. Due to family commitments, I am unable to respond to your points just now. In any case, I may reflect upon whether to bother responding or not. If I fail to do so, please do not interpret this as indicative of your having "won the argument", so much as my recognition of your apparent intransigence.

    YESSSSSSSSSSSS!!! I WON!!!!!

    *starts strutting about, singing Queens "we are the champions" and pumping arms in the air, before remembering to look to the heavens and give a shout out to the big man upstairs*

    *

    *

    *

  6. Earlier in this thread you castigated The Sex Pistols for being choreographed like a boy-band, poseurs, and now you're claiming that "by commercializing Punk, the Sex Pistols basically undercut everything Punk stood for". So where do you stand on The Ramones? You don't think that having a band uniform, a gimmick (pretending to be brothers), a logo, etc. represent distinct elements of boy-band choreography, posing, striving to turn their schtick into something "commercial", or , in other words...uh, "commercialism". The Ramones were not "anti-commercial" in any respect. They and most of the other artists you mentioned would have given their right arms for something like the commercial profile achieved by the Pistols and The Clash. As it is, it required a youth explosion in the UK to generate interest in those bands, which in turn enhanced their profile "back home". Nobody denied the crucial influence of those US bands on the development of The Pistols/UK punk, but it's as well to recall that even in their own country they were perceived as "minority interests" and their popularity confined to tiny ghettoes. I suppose it depends whether you consider this to have been "by choice" or not,...whether you want to be elitist about it....Most of those who survived, when offered the opportunity to enjoy an enhanced public profile, took it gladly...and didn't ask The Sex Pistols permission one way or another... I think you tend to overplay the "anti-commercial" stance of the early punks....Maybe their stance wasn't dictated so much by "anti-commercialism" as by the lack of a sympathetic domestic market?

    The difference between the Ramones and the Sex Pistols (well one of the differences anyway) is that the Ramones were original--authentic. The Sex Pistols were manufactured to copy what the Ramones, NY Dolls, Richard Hell, etc were already doing...The Sex pistols were part of punk as a 'pop movement'. The Ramones started out just making noise and leaving people flaberghasted. The leather jackets, the bowl-cuts, etc were all part of the fun, but also a way of expressing unity in any who opposed them (gang-mentality if you will), it wasn't about trying to be a part of a pop movement...

  7. i agree diggs, things get very boring around here without a bit of debate! i'm not a big fan of personal insults though (and they don't go down too well with the moderators either!) but certainly, a bit of lively discussion is very important!

    Actually I wasnt insulting any one person personally. I was using the universal 'you'...

    You folks here seem fairly nice, I was just expecting a little more debate/arguement and not so many filppant wise cracks--not that I mind the wisecracks, in fact I enjoyed them, but that seems like the only response I was getting.

    I think this forum is probably the wrong place to look for the kind of discussion I was hoping for. There's other forum's that suit the kind of discussion I was hoping for better, so I'll be better off to kick around there...

  8. So what's the deal with this site? Why isn't anyone here interested in Rockism? Is this just a site for mindless Pop Culture consumers to come and make lists of their ten favorite Pop songs or gossip about a pop stars personal life? Rock music has alot to offer. It has a lot of meaning beyond the toe-tapping affect it has on corporate automatons as they slave their way through another corporate workday...If you can't dig beyond the superfical surface of the pop culture and try to really understand what is going on in this country, then I guess you deserve your fate as mindless sheep that are led about by your corporate masters...I for one, was hoping to find a little something more substancial here, but it seems obvious I have come to the wrong place...

    ...and I'm not talking about he CIA killed John Lennon thread I started--that was just a joke and a way to test the waters here...

  9. Um, music in general has been "corporate" for well longer than 20 years. And "critical observation" has been around since just a bit before Dylan...

    I love how you refer to personal opinion as "wisdom", though. :thumbup:

    Remember though we are talking about Rock music. During the 60's Rock was considered the music of the counter-culture--not music for the corporte culture. Also there may have been some 'critical observation' of Rock music before Dylan and the beatles but it has had little impact on the grand narration of Rockism.

  10. I have read over this thread and I am happy to see that I am not the only one who gets confused as the thread goes on...I can't really comment on the issue of topic because I am so lost. :confused:

    Even twenty years after the Corporate take over of Rock Music, Rock remains the default option for most opinion-makers (magazines especially) and the way they talk about and view music. I point this out, because it goes to show Rock's grip on the "grand narrative" of Music. This grand narrative has been structured over the years through books, newspapers, magazines, conversations etc that all began with the critical observation of Dylan and the Beatles. From there it has evolved into an accepted wisdom and language that is commonly referred to as Rockism.

  11. The reason no-one can agree upon which music is rockist is that the term doesn't apply to music but attitudes. And the attitudes aren't fixed creeds when it comes to the music itself (eg. synthesisers are bad) but much more positional and relational eg. "Between the [x] and [y], [x] is much better because..." Which is why you can have a rockism of hip hop, a rockism of dance music etc. - at this point I'd invoke my solar system model of rockism/indieness.

    -- Tim Finney (tfinne...), October 4th, 2004.

    no two people really seem to be able to agree what the term even really means. (Someone said "as little of black music as possible" - where I've always thought rockists are excessively concerned with authenticity deriving from blues roots.) But is this even a meaningful thing to be concerned about anymore? I could maybe see the use of critiquing rockism in the 70s and 80s. Now, it seems increasingly rare that anyone has a problem, say, with drum machines or songwriting teams or dance clubs, and thinks that everyone should listen to Dylan.

    -- sundar subramanian (sundar_subramanian200...), October 4th, 2004. (3 trackbacks)

    "True rockism" can't exist. Even the most die-hard deathmetallers I know have a favorite pop song in their closet somewhere.

    -- Alex in NYC (vassife...), October 4th, 2004.

  12. This term 'rockist' - is it something you have invented, or does it have a recognised definition somewhere? Apologies if it does and has been explained elsewhere in this topic.

    Its a commonly used term--its mentioned in the articles I gave links to...

    Here's an article that deals with it:

    http://ilx.wh3rd.net/thread.php?msgid=5266352&showall=true

    or you can try this one:

    http://www.stylusmagazine.com/feature.php?ID=1666

  13. Ok . Now , from your explanation above , I think I'm understanding this more clearly . Can be as little as a singular episode/ concert or a one particular track or the like , eh ? - and each person may differ in their choices ...

    Well yeah, in responce to the question about a Rockism paragon, this is the way a Rockist works. For instance, do you have any moments/songs/albums/concerts/events that epitomize Rock (for you)?

    If you do, a Rockist would ask you why does that thing you picked epitomize Rock--and themore knowledgible you are in regards to everything dealing with rock, then the more convincing your reasoning is going to be.

    BTW, Rockists are generally not critics. Rockists are fans, collectors, enthusiastic, historians. They do give their opinions and they do sometimes write their opinions down, but they are most definatley NOT Rock Critics.

  14. For clarification, could you give some examples of artists that might be considered 'paragons' by Rockism criteria?

    Just for fun, can you evaluate a few artists in terms of how you think they would be viewed by Rockist critics?

    AC/DC

    Alice Cooper

    Beastie Boys

    Foreigner

    Grateful Dead

    Excellent question. Each Rockist I've ever known has their own paragons--and they are not so large in scope as to include an entire band or that band's entire career. In fact looking at an artist as subjectively as possible is a very highly regarded trait in Rockism circles. This means that you can say that Bob Dylan is a genius lyricist, but he did have a tendency to ramble a bit at times in a boring and now dated manner (for example on his album he Times they are a-changin)...Yet at the same time there are specific albums, concerts, songs, moments in time even that Rockists will defened to their death as being the pinnacle of Rock perfection.

    Each Rockist will probablly give you a different set of examples. It may be side two of Abbey Road, it may be Eddie Van Halen's intro into 'You Really Got Me' or it may be Sid Vicious passing out in a dirty hotel room as Nancy Spungeon bleeds to death.

    The great thing about Rockism is that every Rockist can have his own paragon--just as long as he can (and will) defend his reasonings for it...

  15. Have you never heard of the Stooges? Or the Dictators or the Dead Boys or the Ramones? Or even the MC5. Maybe you are in a vaccum because you are stuck in the Uk(which also explains your nationalistic loyalty to Brit Punk) but by the time the Sex Pistols jumped on the band wagon the golden age of punk was already on the downswing. By commercializing Punk, the sex Pistols basically undercut everything Punk stood for...

  16. I've been on so many message boards where I've asked people to prove to me that Rap/Hip hop of today doesn't suck. "Give me some great artists" I ask them...sometimes I get answers, listen to their recommendations and think, Jesus-this is crap. I do like a few songs by Outkast I admit, but that is the only modern hip hop act I've even mildly liked--and beleive me I've been open-minded to it, and have looked for it. I keep thinking there must be something there, if all of these people like it.

    But finally I've come to the conclusion that just becasue something is immensely popular doesnt mean that it has any quality. And I think rap/hip hop is just Pop music. It's easy to make and packaged by the corporate Music Industry so tht it is accessable to a wide and not so selective audiance...

  17. Artists of all varieties who put their works in the marketplace are willing to make reasonable compromises to reach a wider audience. There's nothing wrong with that (It's why book publishers have editors).

    ‘Posers’ and ‘posing’ are established elements in the ‘Rock culture’. If most Rock stars were true to their stage personas around the clock, intelligent people would run the other way instead of seeking their autographs. Showmanship is not a crime. Entertainment ought to be part of the product.

    I really have very little interest in posuers.

    And I'm also not interested in musicians who have compromised their music in order to obtain pop success...

  18. I've only read a bit of this, but I do understand Kevin's point... What he is saying is that if one over-anal(emphasis on the 'anal')ises a piece of music and finds a flaw, the pleasure in that piece is diminished to a degree totally out of proportion to the flaw itself. The comparison with the wife and mole is spurious however, as that is nothing a bit of boiling water and a shovel would sort out...

    If this is what Kevin is trying to illustrate through his metaphor, then I have to ask who says that being more informed about what goes into making a piece of music ONLY reveals the music's flaws? To go back to his car metaphor, it would seem to me the more you learn about the engineering and design and complexities that goes into making that car, the MORE you are going to marvel at it. Wouldn't you?

    ...I find some of your criticisms of The Sex Pistols (on the "Did the Sex Pistols Kill Punk?" thread) somewhat perplexing...

    The Sex Pistols IMO had a minimal effect on Rock. I don't find their music innovative. The were great at attention-whoring which I think does not really contributed anything positive to Rock music...

  19. Yeah, some genres of music don't have much purpose beyond getting ClubKittens to get up and boogie. That's just fine. But some music has an impact on soceity, on history, on the evolution of music (musical style, technique, instrumentation, etc). Certainly you can see why these songs, albums, artists, etc would be interesting (if not even important) to be study, can't you?

    Well , putting it another way , but in the same vein; Say I bought a brand new car that I just loved and was certain that others would too ; eventually that inevitable scratch or nick afflicts it , and really , only I can see it . Now , everyone still says that this is a great car ( looking at the whole and uncritically ) , but I , knowing it's defect , see it as a great car - with a flaw that only I can notice .

    Who is looking at the car properly ? The people who admire it as they see it , or the one who looks perhaps too intimately at the same thing and is somewhat repulsed ? It's like noticing a mole on your wife that isn't particularly attractive ; or are you are broad -minded enough to see her as a whole ?

    I'm not quite understanding this metaphor you are making. You are saying that a new car is like a song or an album? Is that right? But then you get a nick in your new car? So what does that represent? How can a song or album be nicked? Are you saying the CD or the album itself gets nicked? I really don't see how your attempted metaphor is relevent at all.

  20. not necessarily. sometimes just listening and enjoying the music as a finished product is the best way. it's like analysing a film can sometimes ruin its overall effect, or reading too deeply into the structure and meaning of a poem can shatter the illusion it creates when merely enjoyed as a whole. i have grown to hate many poems and novels through over-analysis in english class in my schooldays. sometimes art can just be art. a painting can take your breath away at first sight. it's not always necessary or even advisable to examine every brush stroke the artist made to create the masterpiece.

    That's correct. But isn't it human nature to want to understand something that you think is of high quality? Just think of how music has evolved since the time of Little Richard and Buddy HOlly. If Music is going to continue to evolve there needs to be some reflection, there needs to be some honing os skills, there needs to be a consciousness of Rock culture, Rock history, Rock society. That's what Rockism is about.

    For the casual listener, just listening to the music is fine. If Brintey Spears moves them, then great. If Wham! or Panic! At the disco floats their boat, then gee-whiz willigans golly gee, that's great. But for the more discerning music fan, its fun to go beyond just the surface of a pop song that is heard on the radio and get to understand the music in a broader sense. That's where Rockism comes in to play.

  21. Sorry, Paul - I didn't mean that being inquisitive was elitist. I just constructed that paragraph horribly. :)

    By "this particular outlook" I meant rockism on the whole.

    I see what you mean. One of the big criticisms of Rockism is exactly what you brought up. People think Rockism is telling them how Rock (or music in general) should be made as if Rockism is a theory on how to make quality music. But IMO what Rockism really is is just a method of putting music that has already been made into context and evaluating it on those merits.

×
×
  • Create New...