Whats your favorite Nirvana song?

[elctmist]

Originally posted by jcn37203 The Police, as in Roxanne? As in Sting?

Not so much "Roxanne" more "Every Breath You Take", "King of Pain". The verse chuggy riff with chorus pedal and chord suspensions kind of sound. Only Nirvana would kick it up with distortion for the chorus/hook.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by jcn37203 Of course not, they're your favorite band, thats how the bjective/subjective thing works.

 

 

I didn't say they are my favourite, one of many certainly. Believe it or not I made that statement from a place of objectivity though it may seem otherwise to you. What helps is the fact that it is true. Led Zep was clearly blues based though Killing Joke had a basis in

components of a sound which they sought to rearange in a way that had not been done before ... they were unique at their time and might only have had Swans as a contemporary. Comparing Led Zep's blues derivitive stylings to Killing Jokes borrowing from nothing else is beyond the long bow. Killing Joke had no predecessor in sound or a contemporary at their time ... Swans maybe.

 

Nirvana on the other hand ... everything that had come before.

 

 

You don't have to be a pioneer to be great. If the concept of musical pioneer is even possible.

 

 

It's not just an issue of pioneering, it's so far beyond that. It gets into a huge intellectual argument about the underground, what it was before, what happened when they came along ... all manner of issues that are probably beyond the scope of this medium to discuss. If we had a couple of hours and a bottle of whisky I'd happily chew this one out with you.

 

It gets into issues for me of an ersatz underground that they were largely the flag bearers of ... a means of the middle class slumming it in some faux rebellion of shopping mall disenfranchisement. It comes down to exactly what Jello Biafra was talking about when he said "You need a Holiday in Cambodia!" ... and the funniest thing of all to me is that you can't tell people what they don't know. What happened with Nirvana was the point of detachment regarding what the underground was and what it is today ... MTV.

 

 

is that they tend to think they have an inside lane to objective reality about music.

 

 

See that doesn't do much for me, I think it's perfectly true what your saying but at the same time those people are largely right ... it's both, which is an interesting paradox which is nevertheless a reality. Celine is bull{censored}. I feel no guilt in having said that.

 

 

But I wonder how many times she is played at weddings, funerals, or as dedications in moments that are very important to people. I'd say touching so many people is quite an accomplishment, even if many of her contemporaries see it as overly sentimental crap.

 

 

Yeah sure ... look most people in the world see music as something they are pulling off the shelf at the supermarket and dropping into their baskets ... it's not about the creative process it's just consumerism. The rare moments when they select that special song at the wedding or whatever doesn't suddenly justify the music as great, worthy or art ... it's just more consumer junk that they decided to use as a backing track to provide more emotion where it's perhaps in lack! Do they care about the artist and the process, the meaning of music and it's deeper social significance, no! It's just musical booze to highlight another suburban moment thats been ticked off the list in the usual unimaginative style.

 

Frankly I don't look to the mass consumer to be my musical moral compass in regard to what I deem to be great art and not. At the end of the day it's a case of which side of the glass your looking in at ... for me music is art, culture, experience, life, creativity, passion and expression. If I have an attachment and a vested interest in it, music, which sets me apart from the consumer, flicking channels and being fed the latest songs deemed to be hits by the machine, then I'm more than happy to take my licks for it.

 

 

That's art, essentially. One man's Monet is another man's Bob Ross.

 

 

That art is subjectively valued is without a doubt true, what I question is the people validating what it is and isn't ... non artists!

[elctmist]

BTW, sort of on topic, the former bassist for killing Joke drinks at my local bar. His -- apparently lovely -- urban garden has just been featured in the NY Times.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by jcn37203 Then Nirvana comes along, singing "Rape Me" and "Polly", etc, and then its cool to be {censored}ed up, so Korn and Disturbed and {censored} are getting played in The Gap.

 

 

Well I think this is the problem ...it's a generational perspective thing and I notice it allot. People who experienced Nirvana thought it was new because they weren't around during the Punk scene ... it's called 80's baby syndrome. People who lived through the 70's, were either born in it and lived the 80's Punk scene know better ... Nirvana were nothing new to people who'd been around longer than those who hadn't ... the Punk scene had more teeth to it ... Nirvana were not the first to write about Rape or heavy topics for gods sakes ...

 

Sex Pistols - Bodies ... about a chick who arrives at Lydons pad with an aborted baby in a clear plastic handbag!

 

Dead Kennedys - Too drunk to {censored} ...

 

Man, that {censored} had been done so many different ways from sunday long before Nirvana even arrived ... kids just don't know their music history thats all.

[jcn37203]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Well I think this is the problem ...it's a generational perspective thing and I notice it allot. People who experienced Nirvana thought it was new because they weren't around during the Punk scene ... it's called 80's baby syndrome. People who lived through the 70's, were either born in it and lived the 80's Punk scene know better ... Nirvana were nothing new to people who'd been around longer than those who hadn't ... the Punk scene had more teeth to it ... Nirvana were not the first to write about Rape or heavy topics for gods sakes ... Sex Pistols - Bodies ... about a chick who arrives at Lydons pad with an aborted baby in a clear plastic handbag! Dead Kennedys - Too drunk to {censored} ... Man, that {censored} had been done so many different ways from sunday long before Nirvana even arrived ... kids just don't know their music history thats all.

 

 

 

Thats not the point. I know people were singing rough lyrics before Nirvana.

 

80's punk didn't exactly invent rough lyrics either.

 

Besides, Nirvana's lyrics weren't even that rough.

 

I'm saying Nirvana bridged the gap so that Cindy PrettyPanties didn't see it as icky anymore.

 

I'm not making any case for originality. I think the concept is a lost cause in the world of music. So I guess I'm making the case against originality.

 

I'm also saying that the big deal with Nirvana isn't their originality, but their songs. We seem to be getting caught up in the mechanics and missing the machine.

 

I learned a Cracker song the other day, Teen Angst. Do you know that one?

 

D - C - G - C.

 

Thats it.

 

How many other songs have used that progression? Christ, I probably can't even count that high. Doesn't mean the song sucks. Just means it's easy to play.

[bucket_brigadier]

probably heart shaped box.

[arexjay]

Originally posted by jcn37203 I really like Heart Shaped Box.

 

 

 

I agree

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by jcn37203 80's punk didn't exactly invent rough lyrics either.

I would be the first to agree on that point though that wasn't my point either ... rather that Nirvana were not bringing anything new ... musically or lyrically.

I'm saying Nirvana bridged the gap so that Cindy PrettyPanties didn't see it as icky anymore.

Thats exactly the point for me ... the reason why Nirvana were able to bridge the gap is not a matter of them being the catalyst but rather they were just a result of the outgrowth of the real underground since the 70's Punk scene. Kids were slowly but surely being primed throughout the 80's by what was already humming away in the basement culturally and otherwise ... it was on the back of the legitimate underground that Nirvana was able to be a bridge to Cindy ... but they were not the movement itself, just a tool of the spectacle which was finally ready to appropriate what was once dangerous ... it made it tame again and safe, perfect for little Cindy and her girlfriends to slum it in an ersatz middle class shopping mall disenfranchisement. Totally full of {censored}!

You probably have no idea what I am talking about ... and perhaps didn't get the Jello Biafra reference either? It's cool ... to be expected. That bridging the gap is where it went off the rails, sorry.

[AcousticControl]

which one has the quiet verse, then the loud chorus, and the out of key vocals?

oh yeah. all of them.

[lefchr]

Originally posted by jcn37203 Dude, my old band used to have a {censored}ing blast playing Negative Creep. Thats like the only song I can think of where the sloppier you play it, the better it sounds. You can actually play it while falling backwards on to a drum set without screwing it up.

same with my old band:)

my favorites have to be anything from bleach, territorial pissings, radio friendly unit shifter.

[lefchr]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Well I think this is the problem ...it's a generational perspective thing and I notice it allot. People who experienced Nirvana thought it was new because they weren't around during the Punk scene ... it's called 80's baby syndrome. People who lived through the 70's, were either born in it and lived the 80's Punk scene know better ... Nirvana were nothing new to people who'd been around longer than those who hadn't ... the Punk scene had more teeth to it ... Nirvana were not the first to write about Rape or heavy topics for gods sakes ... Sex Pistols - Bodies ... about a chick who arrives at Lydons pad with an aborted baby in a clear plastic handbag! Dead Kennedys - Too drunk to {censored} ... Man, that {censored} had been done so many different ways from sunday long before Nirvana even arrived ... kids just don't know their music history thats all.

 

 

what about big black - colubian necktie, fish fry, jordan minnesota. I think they top the last for some of the crazier lyrics.

[Zooey]

In Bloom.

[jcn37203]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER You probably have no idea what I am talking about ... and perhaps didn't get the Jello Biafra reference either? It's cool ... to be expected. That bridging the gap is where it went off the rails, sorry.

Yes, my vocabulary is not limited by syllables, I get what you're saying. I just happen to diasagree, though I guess the 4 or 5 years of age you have on me opened your eyes to things I'm simply to dumbed down by my generation to comprehend.

And I know who Jello Biafra is. Musically and politically.

I think the difference is that I have come to a place where I see elitism and viewing oneself (or one's clique) as superior to entire populations as being ultimately destructive.

What I'm getting from you is Nirvana is {censored} because punk has been done.

What I'm saying is that the idea behind punk had been done when 'punk' only meant 'prison sex slave'. The concept behind "punk" music in the 80's, like it or not, was mainly aesthetic. What's the difference between "Anarchy in the UK" and "This Machine Kills Facists"?

Woody Guthrie was raging against the machine before Sid Vicious ever shot his first speedball. No, he wasn't playing power chords through distorted amps, but if that's the 'catalyst' then lets trace that back to the first sliced-up speaker.

And I'm not saying Guthrie originated punk, as he had to get his ideas from somebody. Nobody has truly original thoughts, thats a fact. We take turns modifying each others thoughts and testing those out until we find what seems to be the closest fit to the truth. If any man were truly an island, he'd never learn not to {censored} on himself. Put a child in a vacuum with a guitar and I guarantee that child will never figure out what the hell the guitar is for.

What it seems like you are saying is that, basically, your generation, your music just so happens to be the true generation of rebellion. The true progenetor of all the things that eventually became culturally relevant. And that those poor sod unfortunate enough to not be born within a certain window of time are all just mindless sheep.


This is also not an original idea. This is *everybody's* idea. Every generation feels like it "gets it" while those before and after are either too old or too young. This goes all the way back to jazz, big band, etc.

If thats not your point, then I don't see the point of bringing up 80's punk bands.

I mean, you don't like Nirvana, fine. But you're basically attacking an entire generation, at a very personal level. Like we lack the intellect to comprehend the mechanisms that manipulate our most intimate ideas, but a select few musical illuminati are enlightened by the {censored}ing 80's?

All because I like Heart Shaped Box?

Come on, Tiki.

[blaghaus]

very good post JCN

[HMCMedic]

I'm waiting for the previously unreleased version of "Shotgun In My Mouth"










Sorry, Medic humor!


I really like "Been A Son" live version

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by jcn37203 Yes, my vocabulary is not limited by syllables, I get what you're saying. I just happen to diasagree, though I guess the 4 or 5 years of age you have on me opened your eyes to things I'm simply to dumbed down by my generation to comprehend.

Don't get upset, it wasn't a slag off ... I was genuinely questioning that your grasp of the various semiotic signs and symbols pertinent to a movement you may not have experienced may well have disenabled you from truly grasping my meaning. I still think thats true though you may believe you've got it pegged. See I think you've got allot of good things pegged but your missing the bottom line.

Nirvana were a bridge for the mainstream to invade the underground and make it safe ... it's called classic appropriation and it's as old as the sands of time. The spectacle does this in every era ... I am simply at a kind of intellectual and cultural war with the mainstream and the spectacle generally so you might think that my views are all about elitism and some simplistic clique value system ... but your wrong.

I don't think I could explain it within this context, I'd be here for hours. I am trying to address the minutae of Nirvana whilst drawing your attention to the bigger picture but you have a paradigm issue which I can't solve for you. You see my angle but not my meaning, without both the paradigm shift ain't gonna happen in this fora.

I think the difference is that I have come to a place where I see elitism and viewing oneself (or one's clique) as superior to entire populations as being ultimately destructive.

I've never been a part of a clique in my entire life .. the underground I knew was entirely individualistic. You ofcourse always had slummers who missed the point but by and large it was a diaspora of individuality that held to that basic ethic without the trappings of the usual
elitism your suggesting, thats the difference and the point. If I defend it as authentic and you never experienced it you can easily assume it as something within your semiotic value system ... but without the experiential you've got no grounds to comment. It's not an issue of being superior but rather being authentic in the age of hyperealism; your missing that.

What I'm getting from you is Nirvana is {censored} because punk has been done.

Then you've missed the/my point, I can't say it any better than I already have.

What I'm saying is that the idea behind punk had been done when 'punk' only meant 'prison sex slave'. The concept behind "punk" music in the 80's, like it or not, was mainly aesthetic. What's the difference between "Anarchy in the UK" and "This Machine Kills Facists"?

Huge difference ... it may have been aesthetic to you but to allot of people it was a living thing and a way of life ... you and others perhaps never knew that because MTV took over your living rooms ... the revolution at that time was not being televised by those living it for real. There's nothing elitist about that, it's just the facts ... I lived it and had many friends who lived it.

Woody Guthrie was raging against the machine before Sid Vicious ever shot his first speedball.

At what point did I say there was nothing punk before punk? Your focussing on the defense of a perceived view of a position I have not taken. Ok, great ... Woody Guthrie.

Nobody has truly original thoughts, thats a fact.

I disagree ... there are billions of things in this world that have been originated with original thought ... it is the examination of human history that gives man the perspective to feel jaded regarding originality. The wheel was somebodies original thought ... so was the splitting of the atom and many, many things. I see the world as an infinate space for conceiving of original thought but I can see where the MTV generation might be just totally overwhelmed by info to feel that it's not possible to have an original thought anymore. Not me sunshne.

Sure, these days we live in the age of the Tabula Rasa ... but thats just one element. Blow up a planet and 50,000,000 new planets are born ... anew! There may be nothing new under the sun but then the sun had it's origins also and there was a time when the sun was also new.

Put a child in a vacuum with a guitar and I guarantee that child will never figure out what the hell the guitar is for.

Are you kidding? Thats exactly how ancient man discovered musical instruments. They found flutes and pipes discovered in ancient neanderthal burial grounds made from animal bones with small holes bored into them! It is mans propensity for thought and original and creative thought that allows man to progress and invent and strive for NEW idea's and concepts. Man is indeed the exact kind of child that was left in a vacuum with mere tools and managed to claw it's way through invention and curiosity to the civilization we have today ... it is the mainstream which works unnaturally against this natural impulse ... dumbing down indeed! Your just bridging a gap to stupidity and building a bridge to creative narcissicm, the whole {censored}er leads nowhere.

What it seems like you are saying is that, basically, your generation, your music just so happens to be the true generation of rebellion.

No, I am saying that many generations have know an authentic rebellion, I was lucky to experience one of those and I have lived to witness a point when people think it has continued in Grunge but in actual fact it's just theatre and commodity and Nirvana were the sountrack to it.

The true progenetor of all the things that eventually became culturally relevant. And that those poor sod unfortunate enough to not be born within a certain window of time are all just mindless sheep.

Not true ... but authentic. You see it's a continuation of a human condition and attitude which lives on down through the ages. Punk is nothing new either, there were probably Punk cavemen also. It's an ethic and an attitude towards life, culture and a way of thinking and being. I feel that the grunge thing and the 90's scene were an attempt by the spectacle and the mainstream ( very succesful too ) to usurp that ethic and replace it with all the appearences of same when it was the most insidious kind of appropriation. But by that time MTV had done it's work. It's what the Spectacle has always done and always tried to do but in this modern age the stakes are higher and with mass media the medium is the massage ... yes massage. It's called manufacturing consent though in this case content.

This is also not an original idea. This is *everybody's* idea. Every generation feels like it "gets it" while those before and after are either too old or too young. This goes all the way back to jazz, big band, etc.

Yes indeed ... but some get it and some don't.

If thats not your point, then I don't see the point of bringing up 80's punk bands.

Because that was the immediate reference point for Nirvana and the Grunge scene ... pretty simple stuff. It's merely a movement in the opus, not the opus itself.

I mean, you don't like Nirvana, fine.

I don't like the meaning of Nirvana ... try to grasp that.

But you're basically attacking an entire generation, at a very personal level.

Not at all, I am not attacking anyone or anything but the spectacle and the in-authentic. If people choose to identify themselves so closely with a band that they take any criticism of that band personally then thats their issue, not mine ... as well as being pretty misguided. Time will cure that though.

Like we lack the intellect to comprehend the mechanisms that manipulate our most intimate ideas, but a select few musical illuminati are enlightened by the {censored}ing 80's? All because I like Heart Shaped Box? Come on, Tiki.

Thats a very simplistic breakdown of your perception of this discussion but it has no real bearing on what I am saying. If you don't get it I'm not going to force it on you ... great, love em or hate them it matters not to me. I am merely stating my thoughts about the band, the movement and what I think since you asked and adressed me directly. Roll with it if it's your thing ... I'll be where I've always been.

[corso]

Your balls swing like a churchbell clapper
your dick stands up like the steeple
your asshole opens up like a churchdoor
and the crabs crawl in like people

from "Shave'em Dry" blues tune recorded in the 20's.

[telepaul]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Nirvana were a bridge for the mainstream to invade the underground and make it safe ...

 

 

It certainly wasn't calculated on cobain's part. It would probably be a big reason why the guy blew his brains out.

 

My favorite tune would be "Blew."

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by telepaul It certainly wasn't calculated on cobain's part. It would probably be a big reason why the guy blew his brains out. My favorite tune would be "Blew."

 

 

Oh I agree ... I have said that elsewhere on these fora before ... I think Kurt knew what was happening and hated it personally, by then too late though. You'd be feeling like Judas ...

[jcn37203]

OK, if you don't see the pomposity of what you're saying... then all is lost.

No way I'm going to spend the next hour breaking things down line by line, but a few things stuck in my mind.

1. You think the wheel occurred to one person as a blast of realization? Or as a process over years of many people changing wheel-like objects until "The Wheel", as we recognize it, came to be?

2. You think a single human decided out of the blue to drill some holes in reeds and blow on it? Or do you think maybe someone noticed blowing on a reed made a sound, then later on someone else noticed a reed with a hole in it made a different sound, then later on someone else noticed covering the hole changed the sound of the reed with the hole, then someone else realized you could create holes, then someone else relized changing the location of the hole changed the pitch and key? I wonder who is credited with the original idea here? You think if we went back in time and handed that stone age reed blower a modern flute, he'd figure it out? That he'd have any idea that his ideas had lead to such a thing? That's what I'm saying. The original idea of the flute was hardly original. It was an evolution of ideas. And who's to say that in a thousand years the flute we play today won't have changed?

3. The offensive thing is not your opinion of Nirvana, which I don't care about. It is the wholesale dismissal of my opinion, like I'm a 5 year old. I feel like the main point of this argument has not been the communication of ideas, but of establishing an intellectual pecking order, or the establishment of some sort of credibility grading system, which only a select have essentially been born in to.

Are you kidding? Thats exactly how ancient man discovered musical instruments. They found flutes and pipes discovered in ancient neanderthal burial grounds made from animal bones with small holes bored into them! It is mans propensity for thought and original and creative thought that allows man to progress and invent and strive for NEW idea's and concepts. Man is indeed the exact kind of child that was left in a vacuum with mere tools and managed to claw it's way through invention and curiosity to the civilization we have today

I am distinguishing between one man and mankind. Surely you realized this.

I'm seriously done here. It seems like you have some serious issues with your perceived middle class slummers taking your street cred from you. Which is understandable I guess, if street cred is the way a person evaluates themselves, though those issues are usually left behind shortly after puberty.

I never said anything about Nirvana's authenticity. In fact, using the name of the band at this point is grating because this conversation has spiraled so far out of the context I can't even see a way back.

I will say this though, it is my firm belief that no musician, nor any other artist exists outside the realm of influence, and only the truly delusional would claim to be 100% original. Once that is established it becomes a game of applying subjective filters to evaluate the "originalness". Which is a joke, at best.

There are two ways to approach music, as art or as commodity. My belief is that Nirvana was a tragic case of the confusion of the two. Cobain was an artist who literally sold his soul, and it killed him. Wether or not they "spoke" to you in particular is totally beside the point. Your ability to track their influence as far back as you are capable does not mean that that influence can not be tracked back farther. Thats my whole point.

[Zooey]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Nirvana were a bridge for the mainstream to invade the underground and make it safe ... it's called classic appropriation and it's as old as the sands of time.

 

 

That puts Nirvana in some pretty good company.

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by jcn37203 OK, if you don't see the pomposity of what you're saying... then all is lost. No way I'm going to spend the next hour breaking things down line by line, but a few things stuck in my mind. 1. You think the wheel occurred to one person as a blast of realization? Or as a process over years of many people changing wheel-like objects until "The Wheel", as we recognize it, came to be? 2. You think a single human decided out of the blue to drill some holes in reeds and blow on it? Or do you think maybe someone noticed blowing on a reed made a sound, then later on someone else noticed a reed with a hole in it made a different sound, then later on someone else noticed covering the hole changed the sound of the reed with the hole, then someone else realized you could create holes, then someone else relized changing the location of the hole changed the pitch and key? I wonder who is credited with the original idea here? You think if we went back in time and handed that stone age reed blower a modern flute, he'd figure it out? That he'd have any idea that his ideas had lead to such a thing? That's what I'm saying. The original idea of the flute was hardly original. It was an evolution of ideas. And who's to say that in a thousand years the flute we play today won't have changed? 3. The offensive thing is not your opinion of Nirvana, which I don't care about. It is the wholesale dismissal of my opinion, like I'm a 5 year old. I feel like the main point of this argument has not been the communication of ideas, but of establishing an intellectual pecking order, or the establishment of some sort of credibility grading system, which only a select have essentially been born in to. I am distinguishing between one man and mankind. Surely you realized this. I'm seriously done here. It seems like you have some serious issues with your perceived middle class slummers taking your street cred from you. Which is understandable I guess, if street cred is the way a person evaluates themselves, though those issues are usually left behind shortly after puberty. I never said anything about Nirvana's authenticity. In fact, using the name of the band at this point is grating because this conversation has spiraled so far out of the context I can't even see a way back. I will say this though, it is my firm belief that no musician, nor any other artist exists outside the realm of influence, and only the truly delusional would claim to be 100% original. Once that is established it becomes a game of applying subjective filters to evaluate the "originalness". Which is a joke, at best. There are two ways to approach music, as art or as commodity. My belief is that Nirvana was a tragic case of the confusion of the two. Cobain was an artist who literally sold his soul, and it killed him. Wether or not they "spoke" to you in particular is totally beside the point. Your ability to track their influence as far back as you are capable does not mean that that influence can not be tracked back farther. Thats my whole point.

 

 

Wow ...

 

Yet again Houston, we have a problem and it is largely one of perception and paradigm. It's a shame you think I am dismissing your opinion, I am not doing that but I am merely calling into question your ability to fully grasp my position sans the experience of the movement I was involved in ... one that largely preceeded the Nirvana spectacle.

 

Your assumption that I have an issue with middle class slumming, having anything to do with my street cred personally, is a pretty pathetic insult to say the least and something I wouldn't have expected from you. It's not been difficult for me to remain civil but thats just bull{censored} Jason; if you don't realize that then you haven't understood an ounce of anything I have said ... I would have hoped for more than that. The fact that you are projecting some kind of issue about established pecking orders onto me says perhaps more about your own ( peurile? ) position than anything I care to add.

 

There are so many attitudes and angles in your address to me that you doggedly cling to that are incorrect rearding me that any further attempt by myself to 'right' you seems doomed to failure for fear of further missunderstanding. The reason largely for this is that you are utterly fixated on your paradigm of superiority and social pecking orders you fail to hear me at all. Perhaps we have simply negated one another in all this though I believe I have understood you pretty well. My mistake has been in trying to help you to see my own side from my view and not your own ... c

[Brian Marshall]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Yeah sure ... look most people in the world see music as something they are pulling off the shelf at the supermarket and dropping into their baskets ... it's not about the creative process it's just consumerism. The rare moments when they select that special song at the wedding or whatever doesn't suddenly justify the music as great, worthy or art ... it's just more consumer junk that they decided to use as a backing track to provide more emotion where it's perhaps in lack! Do they care about the artist and the process, the meaning of music and it's deeper social significance, no! It's just musical booze to highlight another suburban moment thats been ticked off the list in the usual unimaginative style. Frankly I don't look to the mass consumer to be my musical moral compass in regard to what I deem to be great art and not. At the end of the day it's a case of which side of the glass your looking in at ... for me music is art, culture, experience, life, creativity, passion and expression. If I have an attachment and a vested interest in it, music, which sets me apart from the consumer, flicking channels and being fed the latest songs deemed to be hits by the machine, then I'm more than happy to take my licks for it. That art is subjectively valued is without a doubt true, what I question is the people validating what it is and isn't ... non artists!

 

 

I actually would consider just about any music that most of us listen to as folk art... whether its rock, rap, folk, whatever... i totally respect that you can dislike a band, but your reasoning sounds like the same reason art elitists dont like folk art, including anything rock, blues, whatever

[TIKILOCKEDOUT]

Originally posted by Brian Marshall I actually would consider just about any music that most of us listen to as folk art... whether its rock, rap, folk, whatever... i totally respect that you can dislike a band, but your reasoning sounds like the same reason art elitists dont like folk art, including anything rock, blues, whatever

 

 

You could make that argument but thats not my position at all ... the only thing I am championing is authenticity and the potency and power of a direct experience and not an apropriated simulacra.

[jcn37203]

Originally posted by TIKIROCKER Your assumption that I have an issue with middle class slumming, having anything to do with my street cred personally, is a pretty pathetic insult to say the least and something I wouldn't have expected from you.

 

 

It seemed like that was your whole impetus. I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from and where you're going and what I have to do with it. I'm not trying to insult you, I don't even see what would be insulting about that.

 

Your points as you just explained them are clear and concise, I wish you'd said them like that two hours ago. I still think your attitude in a couple of the posts was condescending, which is not an attitude I respond well to. There is ample evidence of this throughout the forum, I'll argue till I'm blue in the face, as long as there is mutual respect for ideas. Tell me I'm wrong, fine. Don't tell me I'm beyond being right.

 

Thats the angle you take with a child. "Because I said so", "Because you're too young to understand", "You'll understand when you're older". There is no way I see to interpret that than pecking order.