|
Post by FilterdinBoston on Jan 4, 2003 0:06:36 GMT -5
I have to commend all the people in this posting. All points were well thought out and valid in their own ways. I like coming here and just reading all the things that you guys and gals talk about. Look forward to tomorrows postings! -Boston
|
|
|
Post by l to the ennix on Jan 4, 2003 0:33:14 GMT -5
A good subject case has been brought up:
Avril Lavigne.
She wrote her album, then went and worked with the hitmakers to make them a little more pop-ish. Following this, in an interview, she listed her #1 priority in 2003 to better herself as a songwriter.
Now, don't get me wrong, Sk8ter Boi is a piece of shit, if you ask me..but if you give the rest of the album a listen, there is some very, very good stuff on there...stuff that leads me to believe that she'll grow into a very accomplished songstress in her time.
Meanwhile, the indie circuit has taken to calling her 'advil lasagna.' How intelligent, thought-provoking, and superior of them.
I laugh, sometimes. I really do.
Jello Biafra and the Dead Kennedys spend years, and years, and years, bitching and complaining and trying to get someone to listen..and yet..if in 2003, the Dead Kennedys released a politically-charged album, all of 10,000 people might hear it, whereas if Blink-182 released a politically-charged album, their message would get to roughly 4,000,000 people worldwide within the first three weeks, if their normal sales pattern & download pattern remained stable.
Just points to ponder.
|
|
|
Post by Lexie Chica on Jan 4, 2003 1:57:10 GMT -5
You know, in the celluloid genre, there are two groups (as you pointed out, Lexie)- movies and film. The difference, although sometimes subjective, is pretty obvious. "Two Weeks Notice" is a movie. "Gangs of New York" is a film, in much the same way Hugh Grant is a movie star, while Daniel Day Lewis is an actor. Too bad there's nothing like that for music, for us to differentiate. "Mainstream" and "independent" don't quite cut it, because in all fairness, not all mainstream is crap, just as not all independent stuff is gold. Slightly off-topic: If I hear that Zwan song one more fucking time on Edge102... -coolbyrne Hey coolbyrne, We (family) were just talking over x-mas break about who are the best actors/actresses these days, and I immediately said Daniel Day-Lewis . . . from "My beautiful Lanudrette" and "Room with a View" (check out those back-to-back performances) to "The Last of the Mohicans" and "My Left Foot" to "In the Name of the Father" and "The Boxer" (Emily Watson is a great actress, too) and now, "Gangs of New York" (which I haven't yet seen) that man is amazing--what an incredible range. Anyway, yes the distinction between star and actor is a good one. But in music, don't we have rock stars and pop stars, and musicians and performers? There's some cross-over, like Bono of U2 perhaps, who seems to be a rock star and a musician (of course feel free to disagree and toss in your own nominees) And who's trashing Linkin Park? Welp, there'll always be a few gems--categories are what we use to try to wrap our own stereotypes around, right? k, i'm fading and am moving on for now-- Cya! Lexie
|
|
|
Post by Lexie Chicklet on Jan 4, 2003 2:09:13 GMT -5
Lennix, I think you lost me on that last one. Now that Avril (or whoever) has made a fortune and has identified her priorities, maybe she *will* become a more serious songwriter; heck, she's only like 17 or 18, so she has time to work her craft and evolve. I hope she does. Blink-182 I'm a little less certain about putting out something with a more serious message but who knows? I like a lot of their stuff as is. It's up to them to change, continue on etc. (I know, they've all got 'side projects' now) Name calling doesn't amount to much, but it comes out of all camps, so I'm not sure you can pigeonhole it to alt-indie folks. If the Dead Kennedys (again, or whoever is or was screaming out there) wanted a bazillion ppl to hear their msg but didn't get it out, that's one thing; if they'd rather just have a loyal following (like Fugazi) and make good music, isn't that enough? Anyway if this isn't clear or coherent, sorry. I'm kinda fuzzy at zee moment. Cheers! Lex
|
|
|
Post by unwillingsong on Jan 4, 2003 9:00:11 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting point and raises a question... Does music have to have a serious or political message to be great music? My opinion--no, it doesn't. I could use the Beatles as ONE example (mid-to-late Beatles...not really the early stuff). And--btw--Lexie and anyone else...my intention was NOT to "trash" Linkin Park...or anyone else, really. My general philosophy about ALL of life is "everything is as it should be." There are no mistakes--only lessons to be learned. That includes the music scene. I think there's a place for whatever is "out there." It's making someone happy. That doesn't mean I think it's very "smart" or "good" or particularly valuable as a piece of "art." But...I'm just one of a gazillion "consumers." I do think that there is a difference between entertainer and artist. And there's a place for both in this world--and everything in between. Personally, I just don't care for much of what I hear in the mainstream. And--as for Linkin' Park--based on my limited exposure to them--if I had to categorize them as either entertainers or artists, right now I'd say entertainers. BUT..again...as someone said in one of the posts...there are people (like Bono...and others) who cross or blur the lines between entertainer and artist...so maybe "time" (and opportunity for growth) is the only true test... Anyway, I'm enjoying this conversation, too, Boston! I'm not sure how serious Rich was when he started this...but it's great.
|
|
|
Post by FilterdinBoston on Jan 4, 2003 12:18:10 GMT -5
Ok,..maybe i am not as introspective as some on this topic, or maybe i am just a stupid, stupid man and cant see beyond my nose, but ever since the airwaves have become saturated with Avril's "music", I have liked it less and less and thought about her possibilies of maturing into something else in the same rate.
This is my little take on it.
Once again, the powers-that-be in the music world need to fill their pockets. Boy bands arent gonna do it for them anymore, so they've invested in someone else. A girl that goes on MTV and the cover of Entertainment Weekly all gritting her teeth and wearing studded bracelets and shit to look "punk", but doesnt have a punk bone in her body. Just another fassade put out in front of the tiny-bopper's eyes and ears to make that dollar.
As for the Blink street boys,...well,...they had slid into the same catagory as good ol' Avril.
Thats just my take on it.
-Boston
|
|
|
Post by WetWorks on Jan 4, 2003 20:48:55 GMT -5
MTV has "Hip hop" and this new age "Rap"..
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 5, 2003 1:51:08 GMT -5
when i got off work tonite, i went over to where my rtyhem guitrast/singer works to score some new riffs he's been working on. we had an intresting conversation over a cigerette, and came up with the following theory:
In 5 - 10 years from now, there will be a huge underground punk movement. See all of these large record lables are starting to jew bag the artists. So our theory is pretty much that in about 10 years from now, the entire music scene will be taken over by small inde lables, thus putting the large ones in the dark. My opnion is that a revloution like that is long over due.
I think that'd be pretty cool.
-wark-
|
|
|
Post by Amalgamut on Jan 5, 2003 6:06:55 GMT -5
Wark, I hope you and your guitarist turn out to be right about that.
Ama
|
|
|
Post by Lexie Chica on Jan 5, 2003 21:07:40 GMT -5
Hmmm...interesting point and raises a question... Does music have to have a serious or political message to be great music? My opinion--no, it doesn't. I could use the Beatles as ONE example (mid-to-late Beatles...not really the early stuff). And--btw--Lexie and anyone else...my intention was NOT to "trash" Linkin Park...or anyone else, really. My general philosophy about ALL of life is "everything is as it should be." There are no mistakes--only lessons to be learned. That includes the music scene. I think there's a place for whatever is "out there." It's making someone happy. That doesn't mean I think it's very "smart" or "good" or particularly valuable as a piece of "art." But...I'm just one of a gazillion "consumers." I do think that there is a difference between entertainer and artist. And there's a place for both in this world--and everything in between. Personally, I just don't care for much of what I hear in the mainstream. And--as for Linkin' Park--based on my limited exposure to them--if I had to categorize them as either entertainers or artists, right now I'd say entertainers. BUT..again...as someone said in one of the posts...there are people (like Bono...and others) who cross or blur the lines between entertainer and artist...so maybe "time" (and opportunity for growth) is the only true test... Anyway, I'm enjoying this conversation, too, Boston! I'm not sure how serious Rich was when he started this...but it's great. Add me to that list . . . Hey hey unwilling -- I agree that music doesn't always have to be serious or political. In fact, sometimes artists go so far that they try to make everything "significant" amd "meaningful" and the songs/music end/s up losing its impact. Nothing wrong with a good tune to hum along to now and then; ditto flicks. And I was just teasing you a little about the whole Linkin Park trashing--altho I think they are more than purely entertainers. I am interested in what else they'll be putting out; "Reanimation" doesn't really qualify in my book. Oh yeah, I thought of another decent actor, Edward Norton; the showing of "American History X" this weekend jogged those brain cells haha As for whether there are any/no mistakes, hmmm, don't really have my philosophical cap on right now but interesting point--maybe we can discuss that in another thread Lexie
|
|
|
Post by l to the ennix on Jan 5, 2003 22:39:33 GMT -5
but doesnt have a punk bone in her body. ..but what is punk, if not just another spoon-fed alterculture with specific modes of operation, styles, trends, and the rest? No better, no worse. If a punk dresses up in a suit, he isn't called a poseur, he's called a man in a suit. Why then, when a businessman dresses down, is he automatically trying to be something he's not? As far as Blink's concerned..what is more punk than devising a way to appear in millions of underage girls' bedrooms wearing nothing but your underwear? Blink are punk geniuses, in their own special way. They've taken mediocre talent (I'll give you that, they've never been great instrumentalists) and found a way to suck millions of dollars out of corporate America, all the while thumbing their noses (and other extremities) at civilized society. See, to me, that's more punk than sitting in a smoke-filled basement somewhere complaining about how no one will "stick it to the man."
|
|
coolbyrne
Butt Knight
Liquid Metal Girl
Posts: 57
|
Post by coolbyrne on Jan 5, 2003 23:29:01 GMT -5
As much as I'd like to believe this, the pessimist in me says it'll never happen. Corporate labels will catch a whiff of the up and coming indie movement and throw enough money at it to amalgamate it with the mainstream. The thing is, they'll do it covertly- Sony won't pick up something like Haz Mat Records and start calling it Sony. They'll keep the indie name to keep the "street cred", but make no mistake, it'll be corporate owned- in much the same way there really isn't much of a true indie film industry, because Paramount and Warner Brothers go around to all the film festivals and pick up all the indie companies.
lennix wrote:
I gotta disagree with this one. A punk dressed up in a suit isn't called a poseur, he's called a sell-out. You really think something like that would slide by without derision from the fans and critics??
I'm not sure what punk and being on the poster of a tweener have in common. Sorry, you lost me there. Suddenly I'm rethinking my attitude about N*Sync, if this is the case.
I think we're misusing the term "punk", the same way Avril Lavigne obviously misunderstands it. We're taking certain ideals and attributing them solely to punk. As much as I wouldn't cross the street to get a Madonna disc if they were handing them out, I praise her for pushing the boundaries of her limited talent and for holding the reigns of her own career. That's pretty fuckin' punk in itself... and I certainly wouldn't call Madonna "punk".
And I think we're giving punk too much credit anyway. We seem to hold up punk above the arguments of other genres. It's as if by being a punk (in whatever incarnation you view it), you're automatically "real" and infallible. Of course, this isn't true.
You don't have to be a punk to be a risk taker, to blaze your own trial, to rail against corporate conformity.
-coolbyrne
|
|
|
Post by Lexie Chicklet on Jan 6, 2003 0:49:03 GMT -5
"...but what is punk, if not just another spoon-fed alterculture with specific modes of operation, styles, trends, and the rest?"
That (spoon-fed alterculture) is what the commercialization/mainstreaming of punk has become, but not what it truly is, or what its roots are, imo . . . wark, wanna jump in here? ;D
just like the whole "Gen X" concept -- has anyone actually read the original book by Douglas Copeland (which I think came out in 1991 or 1992), who, in fact, disassociated himself from the whole Gen X 'movement' once it went mainstream. Hey maybe this should be in the Phil 101 thread
|
|
|
Post by l to the ennix on Jan 6, 2003 1:01:17 GMT -5
As much as I'd like to believe this, the pessimist in me says it'll never happen. Corporate labels will catch a whiff of the up and coming indie movement and throw enough money at it to amalgamate it with the mainstream. The thing is, they'll do it covertly- Sony won't pick up something like Haz Mat Records and start calling it Sony. They'll keep the indie name to keep the "street cred", but make no mistake, it'll be corporate owned- in much the same way there really isn't much of a true indie film industry, because Paramount and Warner Brothers go around to all the film festivals and pick up all the indie companies. There's a case study to support this theory...pop-punk. MCA is distributing Drive-Thru, Capitol has signed Jimmy Eat World, Yellowcard, and god knows who else by now -- even Aware (a Columbia subsidy) nabbed the Riddlin' Kids. And the list goes on.
|
|
|
Post by admin on Jan 6, 2003 5:22:54 GMT -5
all i have to say about the subject of punk is this:
SEX PISTOLS.
a band who was only together for, what...2 years..?, only put out one album with the attitude of 'we're going to do what we want to do and don't give a flying fuck what anybody elese says. we're going to be ourselves, and if you don't like it...then fuck off', then totally changing the face of music.
sadly enough, please keep in mind that this is my own sole opnion, is that burritos, tattoos and surfing doesn't make anybody punk, nor does it make punk music. punk is totally %200 doing your own thing, and not caring about what anybody elese might say about you. it's not about the spiked hair or facial piercings, it's about standing up for what you believe in.
uhh, i think that's enough "dao of wark" for one night...it's late...i'm kinda sleepy...and i'm going to go back to editing this song..hehehe, i'll have to kick down a copy to ya'll when it's finished...we wrote a song about this girl megan tonite (lyrics are to the tune of "the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...") who is a complete bitch....yeah some of us have way too much free time on our hands.
-wark-
|
|