Jump to content

Lefsetz on the American Idol Finale


Recommended Posts

  • Members

This excerpt is the conclusion of a much longer newsletter, but it rang true and I thought you might like it (copyright 2007 by Robert Scott Lefsetz and reprinted with the permission of the author):

 

"Our country has so little to rally around, so little to unite us, so little we can debate. We've stopped going to the movies, listening to mainstream music. Now we belong by watching manufactured TV competitions. It's how we relate to our coworkers. By discussing the nuances. Fox and 19 are doing us a favor, adding soul to our lives. But if only the rallying point had more substance, if only we revered true talent, innovation, creativity, intellectual ability. Instead, we celebrate mediocrity, people with pretty faces who we'd like to have over for dinner. Danger's for those in Iraq, not us coddled babies back here in the States.

 

"With so much poverty, so much depression, so much struggle, why are these not acknowledged in the mainstream media? The classic acts of the past spoke from their hearts, unrestricted by convention, we not only loved their work, and still do, but saw them as role models, of human development. We felt if we only got closer to them, our lives would work.

 

"Anybody who thinks getting closer to Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan will make their life work is a putz.

 

"Creativity, talent, originality...they're now at the bottom of the barrel. But the populace is yearning for them to come back."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Right.. Remember the good ole days?!?

 

As is always the case, there are truths and lies in Lefsetz' rant on how much better we were years ago... As if the 1960's or 1970's didn't have their own Paris Hiltons and Lindsay Lohans. I'm not sure but it appears he's calling the Idol contestants mediocre. While that is true of some, the best are hardly that and we realize and discuss that Idol is, at its core, NOT a vocal competition so much as a popularity contest.

 

I can't stand the idea of getting close to PH or LL anymore than Lefsetz, but his narrow-minded, myopic view ignores that people in the U.S. do want to get close to celebrities of character, too. Whether it's Tom Hanks, Bono, Oprah or many other public personalities who give back everyday, there are definitely people worth aspiring to in modern pop culture.

 

I think the best example of this is Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. While the shallow, Extreme Makeover shows dealing with superficial looks, even when done for noble reasons, quickly ceased to hold anybody's attention, a show that celebrates real people who give of themselves, they themselves in dire straits, has continued to be popular with audiences on network television. And the stars of that show, minor celebrities though they may be, are people we can aspire to be like, too. They're not perfect (re: Ty's DUI charges) but they still inspire greatness in many people, in life and through broadcast of the show.

 

Instead of whining Lefsetz ought to mentor some kids, help bring audiences to find better role models on tv and in movies who are already out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Idol is, at its core, NOT a vocal competition so much as a popularity contest.

 

It's a lot like politics - the people with the best ideas and ability don't even want to be involved because the process is so demeaning.

 

As has been discussed here before :deadhorse: the contestants are not chosen strictly on singing ability. They are chosen in part by producers looking for "stories" they can model into the show's altered "reality".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, if he's not calling the contestants mediocre, I am. At least this year's crop.

 

The most striking thing to me about the finale last night was how none of this year's contestants could, in my opinion, even hold a candle to Carrie Underwood. In fact, I thought she blew all of the rest of the past (and present) Idol winners out of the water, but I thought all of the past winners were better than any of this year's contestants (including Jordin Sparks).

 

While, in my mind, Carrie Underwood is by far the best actual singer of all of the Idol winners, do I think she won solely on singing ability? No. Her looks, downhome story/charm, all of that definitely played into the popularity contest. Same is true of all of the winners...it's not just their singing that gets them the title. We're a Reality TV/soundbite/fast food/instant messaging/autotune nation. At least for the time being. As with most trends, that'll probably change at some point down the road.

 

Cheers,

Mark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

come back? its still here and has been all along, its just not on FOX. pick up a copy of juxtapoz and see artistic creativity. go see some indie bands and hear someting cool [even if you are only 1 of 5 in the audience]. dont watch network TV, turn to the premiums for great shows and IFC/Sundance for great movies, both national and foreign.

 

people cant expect to be spoon fed all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I tend to agree with Alphajerk here.

 

Bob Lefsetz (and everyone else in the world) has the option of turning off the damn TV and finding a plethora of music, great music, and great entertainment, all over the damn place. Is there something about the Fox Channel that makes it an irresitable force for entertainment? I don't understand the point of what he's saying here, other than that he's sad that one show covers one thing. Why doesn't he go back in time and complain about Elvis, another mediocre talent shoved down the throat of the American people on their TV sets?

 

Turn off the TV, leave your home, and find music in places where it belongs. There's no need to complain about it not being fed to you, unless you're locked into a home and you lost your TV remote and it's stuck on Fox. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i wish i could make it out to LA with the art shows they have been having... sometimes selling work no more than $200 of some VERY talented artists. $200 to own an original. sure, regular shows sell it for more, but still. there are loads of great visual artists out there. and unlike music, the originals are one of a kind.... owning the MASTER.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

. dont watch network TV, turn to the premiums for great shows and IFC/Sundance for great movies, both national and foreign.

 

What I think Lefsetz is saying is that there was a time when didn't have to search out this kind of thing: It was on network TV, it was on the radio, it was everywhere. Of course, the 60s had the Lemon Pipers and Lulu and all that pop stuff, but right alongside, in the top 20 album charts, you had the Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, James Brown, etc. It was a time when Jimi Hendrix opened for the Monkees and Tim Buckley opened for Miles Davis. Movie theaters showed foreign films, not just blockbusters...and there were lots of independent movie theaters, everything wasn't owned by a chain. Sure, if you're willing to pay for DirecTV or whatever you can see IFC. But there was a time when if you lived in a decent-sized city, you could go to a theater that had that type of material as part of what they normally did. I saw Fellini's "City of Women" in a movie theater. When was the last time you saw any foreign movie in a mainstream multiplex theater, aside from "Pan's Labyrinth"? They're few and far between.

 

This isn't a rant about how "things were better back then." There's a ton of great music being made these days, we all know that. But back then, it WAS more accessible. DJs could play music they liked, not toe the line to a corporate playlist cobbled together based on a combination of independent record promotion men and focus groups. A radio station could play an entire side of an album and no one would blink. Now, you're lucky if you can find a college station that has the same degree of freedom that mainstream stations had back in the 60s.

 

The 60s were a confluence of events that was unique. The baby boomer generation came of age, bringing a gigantic demographic swell that had both economic and political clout. The 1-2-3-4 punch of John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X all being assassinated under shadowy circumstances created a lightning rod that forced people to become politicized. The record industry was still small, and not owned by giant multinational corporations but by would-be musicians and shady promoters who nonetheless trusted their gut more than anything else -- leading to both spectacular failures and successes.

 

What intrigues me the most about that era is its staying power. When I see some 15-year-old kid at the airport listening to an iPod, I'll ask what he's listening to, in the hopes of getting turned on to some cool new music. Many times, the answer is "Led Zeppelin" or some other group from the 60s. This is something unprecedented in my lifetime, where a generation has embraced music from two generations ago. Think how incongruous it would have been if back in 1985, kids going to pick up a U2 or Ultravox album would also pick up albums from Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, or other hot artists from 40 years previous...or if in the 60s, people picked up albums from hot singers from the 20s along with the Jefferson Airplane. The back catalog of music from the 60s is going gangbusters, and it's being devoured by far more than old guys.

 

"Ridin' in a Stutz Bear Cat, Jim

You know, those were different times!

Oh, all the poets they studied rules of verse

And those ladies, they rolled their eyes."

 

They were different times, indeed. But it was unique and will not be repeated, so there's no point in trying. It's like when any scene dies: You can try to re-create the scene, you can whine that it doesn't exist any more, you can deny that it's ended...or you can create the next scene :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

What I think Lefsetz is saying is that there was a time when didn't have to search out this kind of thing: It was on network TV, it was on the radio, it was everywhere. Of course, the 60s had the Lemon Pipers and Lulu and all that pop stuff, but right alongside, in the top 20 album charts, you had the Doors, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, James Brown, etc. It was a time when Jimi Hendrix opened for the Monkees and Tim Buckley opened for Miles Davis. Movie theaters showed foreign films, not just blockbusters...and there were lots of independent movie theaters, everything wasn't owned by a chain. Sure, if you're willing to pay for DirecTV or whatever you can see IFC. But there was a time when if you lived in a decent-sized city, you could go to a theater that had that type of material as part of what they normally did. I saw Fellini's "City of Women" in a movie theater. When was the last time you saw
any
foreign movie in a mainstream multiplex theater, aside from "Pan's Labyrinth"? They're few and far between.


This isn't a rant about how "things were better back then." There's a ton of great music being made these days, we all know that. But back then, it WAS more accessible. DJs could play
music they liked,
not toe the line to a corporate playlist cobbled together based on a combination of independent record promotion men and focus groups. A radio station could play an entire side of an album and no one would blink. Now, you're lucky if you can find a
college
station that has the same degree of freedom that mainstream stations had back in the 60s.


The 60s were a confluence of events that was unique. The baby boomer generation came of age, bringing a gigantic demographic swell that had both economic and political clout. The 1-2-3-4 punch of John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King, and Malcolm X all being assassinated under shadowy circumstances created a lightning rod that forced people to become politicized. The record industry was still small, and not owned by giant multinational corporations but by would-be musicians and shady promoters who nonetheless trusted their gut more than anything else -- leading to both spectacular failures and successes.


What intrigues me the most about that era is its staying power. When I see some 15-year-old kid at the airport listening to an iPod, I'll ask what he's listening to, in the hopes of getting turned on to some cool new music. Many times, the answer is "Led Zeppelin" or some other group from the 60s. This is something unprecedented in my lifetime, where a generation has embraced music from two generations ago. Think how incongruous it would have been if back in 1985, kids going to pick up a U2 or Ultravox album would also pick up albums from Artie Shaw, Benny Goodman, or other hot artists from 40 years previous...or if in the 60s, people picked up albums from hot singers from the 20s along with the Jefferson Airplane. The back catalog of music from the 60s is going gangbusters, and it's being devoured by far more than old guys.


"Ridin' in a Stutz Bear Cat, Jim

You know, those were different times!

Oh, all the poets they studied rules of verse

And those ladies, they rolled their eyes."


They were different times, indeed. But it was unique and will not be repeated, so there's no point in trying. It's like when any scene dies: You can try to re-create the scene, you can whine that it doesn't exist any more, you can deny that it's ended...or you can create the next scene
:)

 

Damn maintenance! Lost a long reply! :mad:

 

Put simply, I find your comments ironic, Craig. You don't seem to have much in common with record industry execs and the RIAA, but you share their faults in your logic. You see mainstream media covering an ever narrowing slice of life and conclude the 60's and 70's were more diverse in entertainment offerings. IMO, nothing can be further from the truth. At the risk of agreeing with Alphajerk, you're espousing the idea that a single media outlet ought to provide a wide variety of content, a la radio of the 1960's and 70's and ignoring that there are magnitudes more content accessible today by anyone with an internet connection, and YouTube, etc. are making it easier to find that content. And when something unusual grabs the attention of the public now, it almost immediately hits 'round the world for anyone with a connection.

 

So there's more content, it's more varied than in previous decades, and anyone with talent can become known without ever talking to a record company, let alone get signed, jump through the hoops to become famous, etc. That the public chooses to escape into the shallow is another point entirely. But whether it's audio or visual, there are far more accessible choices on the net, in video stores, even at public libraries than there ever were. They just aren't being distributed the way you think they ought to be. (I find that last comment ironic because I'm talking to/about a guy who, more than anyone in audio I've seen, has embraced technology, media, etc. in every viable form that's come down the line. How can you not see that this is simply a paradigm shift away from big business to the true will of the people?)

 

I remember the days of highly varied content on radio, too. It wasn't as great as you make it out to be. I was constantly changing stations as they went from music I loved to that I had absolutely no interest whatsoever in. Now, instead of changing stations, the stations have changed to target a particular market. If what you want isn't broadcast, I'm sorry. But I'll bet your satellite radio has provided a wider variety of content and you get to choose the genre rather than getting potpouri. ;)

 

The only archaic content provider I can enjoy that's still around is NPR. They are the epitome of grossly varied programs. The programs they air that I like are so good I gladly listen at particular times during the day while shunning them most other times. But if their programs varied that much every 3-5 minutes I probably wouldn't listen at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Well, as I said, there's a lot of great music out there. And I'll agree with you partway: it's more accessible if you're willing to do your homework. In other words, there's more content than ever, but also, less "filtering" than ever, giving us the paradoxical situation of having more potential treasures than ever before, but making them ever harder to find. When dealing with the YouTubes and Internet Radios of this world, sometimes it feels more like dealing with a noise-to-signal than a signal-to-noise ratio.

 

Record companies used to act like filters. For example, Mango records (a division of Island) always had great material; if something came out on Mango, I bought it. Certain DJs had tastes I agreed with, so I listened to their shows to get turned on to new music. And yes, satellite radio is great - I consider it a huge advance in terms of finding cool stuff. But, how many people can afford the $12 a month on top of cable etc.? This is part of what I mean by accessible. I have XM, and I bought a second subscription for my daughter...but I'm thinking twice about whether to get it for my wife's car...

 

I never said the 60s and 70s were more diverse; there was less product, fewer venues (e.g., no cable TV), etc. However, the outlets that did exist were willing to be more diverse. While the "specialization" of being able to find everything in convenient compartments has its merits, there's also something to be said for stations like the ones on XM where you never know what you're going to hear next. Sure, there are a couple of isolated places on satellite radio where that mentality exists, but it was different when that mentality was considered normal.

 

Obviously I like a lot of what's happening today in terms of media, distribution, and power being returned to the artists and listeners. But some desirable aspects have been lost along the way, and now that we have the power, what are we doing with it? In some ways, it seems like the huge amount of content out there is just proving an entertainment version of Gresham's law where you have to go kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince :)

 

I'll close with a really simple example: When I used to go into record stores, the people behind the counter amused themselves by listening to what they liked. I found out about a lot of good stuff this way because they served as "filters" who had access to vast amounts of music, and ended up finding favorites. Now, what gets in-store play is often mandated. That's an example of how things have changed, and not in a good way. Sure, you can find those recordings yourself, but it sure saved me a lot of time to go to the store on Thursdays when Dave was behind the counter, because he was almost always playing something new that I ended up buying...and might not have heard otherwise. I guess I can find the equivalent of Dave somewhere on the net, but man, I got deadlines to deal with and not a lot of time to go looking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Well, as I said, there's a lot of great music out there. And I'll agree with you partway: it's more accessible
if you're willing to do your homework.
In other words, there's more content than ever, but also, less "filtering" than ever, giving us the paradoxical situation of having more potential treasures than ever before, but making them ever harder to find. When dealing with the YouTubes and Internet Radios of this world, sometimes it feels more like dealing with a noise-to-signal than a signal-to-noise ratio.

 

 

The ol' firehose into a teacup syndrome.

 

The filters thing is right. Like the example of the record store where the clerks would play whatever they felt like, and you could get a kick out of it (or not). But nowadays the "filters" are geared toward profit center marketing tie-ins, not appreciation for the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't say the replacement was shorter, did I Bill??? :D But I lost some salient points from the first version in the second. :(

 

I agree with you about the filters, Craig, but I never had anyone or anyplace quite so consistent as you apparently did. More often I heard a lot of stuff I was glad to be bombarded with in the store thanks to the staff so I wouldn't waste my time on it. ;)

 

The application of Grisham's law is a double edged sword, though. On the one hand, yes, the noise ratio has increased by magnitudes along with quality content but new filters are arising all the time. And they're often times better filters. This forum and forums like it are my best filters. I'm in touch with a wide variety of people whose tastes in music run the gamut. I know enough about many people here to know who to ask about music I'm unfamiliar about and can always open the question of a particular group or tune to the floor and get opinions I filter by that familiarity with a particular poster.

 

And YouTube is fast becoming ever more filtered in the same way by who I get links from. I can tell in an instant if the clip is likely to be musical, comedy, etc. just by who sent it.

 

And frankly, I'll bet if we went back a ways we'd find comments from Mr. Anderton from way back when about how restrictive the record company filters were 20 years ago. ;) I'm glad you had Mango records. The closest I came to such a record company was Windham Hill, but there were still too many artists there I couldn't listen long to for me to say I could consistantly buy anything on the label and expect to like it. (Not to mention they were so niche-y there simply weren't many artists/albums to choose from anyway.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

This excerpt is the conclusion of a much longer newsletter, but it rang true and I thought you might like it (copyright 2007 by Robert Scott Lefsetz and reprinted with the permission of the author):


"Our country has so little to rally around, so little to unite us, so little we can debate. We've stopped going to the movies, listening to mainstream music. Now we belong by watching manufactured TV competitions. It's how we relate to our coworkers. By discussing the nuances. Fox and 19 are doing us a favor, adding soul to our lives. But if only the rallying point had more substance, if only we revered true talent, innovation, creativity, intellectual ability. Instead, we celebrate mediocrity, people with pretty faces who we'd like to have over for dinner. Danger's for those in Iraq, not us coddled babies back here in the States.


"With so much poverty, so much depression, so much struggle, why are these not acknowledged in the mainstream media? The classic acts of the past spoke from their hearts, unrestricted by convention, we not only loved their work, and still do, but saw them as role models, of human development. We felt if we only got closer to them, our lives would work.


"Anybody who thinks getting closer to Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan will make their life work is a putz.


"Creativity, talent, originality...they're now at the bottom of the barrel. But the populace is yearning for them to come back."

 

lf you ask me, that sound pretty dam naive.

 

he say "Our country has so little to rally around, so little to unite us, so little we can debate. " Yo Yo YO, Earth to Lefsetz, our country has rally aroun terrorism an debate ever since 9/11.

 

An lo an behol, American Idol pop up rite after 9/11, an is the yin to the 9/11 yang. If you look at it with eyes wide open, American Idol all about 9/11.

 

9/11 all about loss a control an people angry at they vote. In 9/11 america see they can vote all they like, but aint got no control over nothin.

 

American Idol give control back to America an let em vote. In American Idol, folks can vote an control who win the show. Even if it dont matter. Especially cause it dont matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

In American Idol, folks can vote an control who win the show. Even if it dont matter. Especially cause it dont matter.

 

 

So according to you, the popularity of American Idol is a giant sociological/psychological experiment that provides the illusion of control to an increasingly insecure and weak-feeling populace, eh?

 

I can go with that, but it doesn't really explain the content. I mean, the country can just as easily gain that sensation when choosing between contestants with real talent, or at least real innovation.

 

I'm going to simplify it: American Idol is popular because most people don't know {censored} from shinola, and will accept anything they're told is good. They just don't know it's bad. If you've never even tried baloney, a {censored} sandwich might be appealing if you're hungry.

 

So, basically, I'm saying that people suck, and they've always sucked, and once the entertainment industry realized this, they knew that the effort to go through in finding real talent was a waste of everyone's time. Why? Because the people will buy a product of horrible quality when a) they don't know about other products, and b) when they're so insecure in their own tastes that they'll buy what they think everyone else is buying.

 

We'll all laugh at this in a few years. Tragedy plus time equals comedy, as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

All this handwringing over AI is sort of humorous to me. I've mentioned this before, but will bring it up again: the purpose of AI, just like Oprah, Rush, and every other piece of dreck on TV, is to bring listeners to advertisers.

 

Anything and everything they present as content is carefully geared toward that goal. No art need take place. It is more an exercise in applied statistics to maximize income.

 

The key idea: if you throw bacon to a pack of hungry dogs, they'll scarf it up with gusto, even if the bacon is rotten. Keeping them hungry enough so they'll do this repeatedly is the real genius of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So, basically, I'm saying that people suck, and they've always sucked, and once the entertainment industry realized this, they knew that the effort to go through in finding real talent was a waste of everyone's time. Why? Because the people will buy a product of horrible quality when a) they don't know about other products, and b) when they're so insecure in their own tastes that they'll buy what they think everyone else is buying.

Maaaaaaaan, Where in Gods name did I wind my self up? Is this place the HQ for cynical people inc? Every dam thread the glass half empty. the music biz, American Idol, Firewire, you name it, everyone hatin on everythin. Everyone come here to complain? You all unhappy? Aint nothin right in you lives?

 

American Idol is THE {censored}! Its fun, they got some genuine talent on that show, Melinda CAN sing, Simons the bomb, Its great entertainment. Jus cause a hole lotta people watch and it dont have your faves from the 60s dont make it bad. Actually it do have your faves from the 60s but they should be stayin home and not showin the worl that they cant no longer sing. But its a damn fine show. Quit actin like its all beneath you. AI IS THE {censored}. :love:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

i guess i should appreciate where i live more then... the record stores here are independantly owned, playing music they like. the main theater in town plays only indy films [i saw moog the movie WITH bob, rip] as well as a whole slew of other films, though it did used to be a porn theater back in the day you are talking about. we get killer concerts that bands for some odd reason are choosing to play here and not other major cities, WEEN just played here of 4 places in the country on their little tour, and it ROCKED and was PACKED. it smelled like 1970 btw.

 

i dont agree with the filter thing either, jimi opening for monkees was a DISASTER. and labels have HAD great bands but couldnt market them like they used to. clutch is getting ready to roll through town, and they kinda blow led zepplin away [better drummer and singer anyway, guitarist aint no slouch either... not some metal head but tasty blues player]. majors had them for 10 years and didnt know what to do with them, but they rock a show live and put out some killer CD's. squishy out of chicago was incredible, gam out savannah was incredible with a singer who embodied EVERY singer from back in "the day" all at once. new guys like hifana putting down real time beats [no sequencing] live with massive video shows.

 

i could go on and on... but honestly american idol is exactly how bad americant culture has become. there is NO ART LEFT in the mainstream and who's fault is that? the BABY BOOMERS! pure crass commercialism. the hippies became yuppies and sold their souls to the almighty dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

there is NO ART LEFT in the mainstream and who's fault is that? the BABY BOOMERS! pure crass commercialism. the hippies became yuppies and sold their souls to the almighty dollar.

 

 

I agree the "60s generation" blew it.

 

But as to AI...isn't it kind of everything people are saying about it?

 

It doesn't have the greatest talent in the world. But...

It's entertaining and spectacularly successful. And...

It doesn't have the best music either, but...

It's bringing live music in prime time into people's living rooms. And...

It's an indication that pop culture is happy with pretty unadventurous music, but...

It's getting people to talk about music and participate in a cultural phenomenon. And...

Even if you don't like that phenomenon, at least it involves the arts, even though that uses the term loosely. But...

Mainstream people sitting in comfy chairs are thinking about pitch, and performance, and whether someone is convincing in their singing or going through the motions...

 

With so much on TV that's violent and sadistic, AI seems pretty harmless. Live and let live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Maaaaaaaan, Where in Gods name did I wind my self up? Is this place the HQ for cynical people inc? Every dam thread the glass half empty. the music biz, American Idol, Firewire, you name it, everyone hatin on everythin. Everyone come here to complain? You all unhappy? Aint nothin right in you lives?

 

 

Hey, there's lots of fun stuff here. But the truth lies in George Carlin's comment: "Some say the glass is half full. Some say it's half-empty. I say, you need a different-sized glass."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

like i said, karaoke. art is pushing it even loosely, entertainment maybe... still being used loosely.

 

i dunno... its a shame that is all the LCD is exposed to, and a bigger shame that is what they are content with. the decline of western civilization is certainly upon us. the glass isnt half full, its empty.... completely [for mainstream, 90%, of the population]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

One thing about my rant on the previous page was that the most important element was ignored: The way the stage was set for what happened in the 60s. Whether you were alive during that time or not, I don't think anyone believes the phenomenon that happened back then was business as usual. I mean, I wasn't alive during the 20s, but I sure as hell know there was quite a scene in Paris back then, and in Berlin just before the war...the Renaissance...there have been periods throughout history where everything aligned just right, and Something Happened. Talking about what happened in the 60s isn't a "Things were better back then." My point was that things were different back then. In the 60s, I would never have been able to stream Armin Van Buuren's sets from the net, or find cool Soca internet radio stations in Miami. Those examples, to me, represent progress.

 

On the other hand, if this was the 60s and you walked into a clothing store in a mall, you'd probably hear Year Zero instead of Hilary Duff. That's what I mean about the mainstream being more adventurous in those days, and as a result, the music touched people who didn't dig below the mainstream as a matter of course.

 

And that's also what I meant about creating a new scene. We have the power now: We own the internet and YouTube, record companies can't tell you how to record stuff any more because you can do it with a laptop in your bedroom. But I want to see it used for more than just "Hey, look what I did!" I want to see all that stuff become a scene, become something bigger than the sum of its parts..........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

well, i dont know about you... but we have the most corrupt administration in the executive branch, a bunch of pussies in the legislative branch, caught up in a impossible "war", gas prices higher than in the 70's [inflation adjusted] with imcomes dipping below the baby boomer generation, health care system that borderlines on criminal... and on top of it all, we got americant idol!!! and green day probably put out the best "punk" album in the past few years, thats {censored}ed up.

 

there is no revolution becuase it isnt televised. the largest anti-war march in the US wasnt even mentioned on the news, and countless millions elsewhere in the globe marched. no coverage. no coverage of the bodies coming back either dead or multilated. and all we got is americant idol.

 

and they have dumbed down the school system to simply churn out robots. where is the rebellion? oh, they made too many laws against it. dont have a permit?

 

and you know what? even those who can see the {censored}can the nation/world is in doesnt have the time to do {censored} about it, because our lives are being so heavily levied now that we are more concerned with feeding our families and "getting by" than having the time to fight the power. so we are basically slaves.

 

this nation is seriously {censored}ed up right now.... and people cant see it because they are too distracted by shiny little objects. who the {censored} cares about ANY contestant on americant idol?!? who cares about any of tabloid america?!? when you think about the {censored}storm we are in, maybe it feels "safer" to tune on and tune out to americant idol.

 

you realize the ONLY difference right now and the 70's is the draft? aside from the mindless music permeating the airwaves... and the good artists you speak of from the 70's wouldnt have existed otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...