Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 12
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Guru
|
I think I've already registered my disapproval of music magazines (ahem, Rolling Stone) constantly spouting their politicial opinions instead of writing about music.
Common captitalist philosophy dictates that what most people choose (popular/mainstream stuff) must be the best (or at least the best choice for those people). However, since fewer people listen to them, indie musicians are offended by this concept. According to capitalist philosophy (thinks the indie rocker), fewer people choosing my music means my music is inferior (which the indie musician believes not to be the case). This tension causes indie rockers to reject any right wing cause off-hand because subconciously capitalism endorses their lower position on the financial totem poll, which leads to their outspoken liberal views. There is nothing that can be done about this problem, except to take any political comment by an indie rocker with a grain of salt.
|
| |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
I'm not so sure about that paxsoprano. For one, the Democratic Party is very much a capitalist party, and that's who most of the indie community was pushing to get elected last year. I think it's more like this: Indie music people are very open-minded, liberal types when it comes to music and are therefore more likely to be liberal in other matters as well (such as politics). I agree with your comment on taking indie rockers political comments with a grain of salt, but only because you should take everyone's political comments with a grain of salt.
--------------------------------------------------
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
|
| |
| Posts: 4617 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005 | |
|
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by paxsoprano:
Common captitalist philosophy dictates that what most people choose (popular/mainstream stuff) must be the best (or at least the best choice for those people). However, since fewer people listen to them, indie musicians are offended by this concept. According to capitalist philosophy (thinks the indie rocker), fewer people choosing my music means my music is inferior (which the indie musician believes not to be the case). This tension causes indie rockers to reject any right wing cause off-hand because subconciously capitalism endorses their lower position on the financial totem poll, which leads to their outspoken liberal views. There is nothing that can be done about this problem, except to take any political comment by an indie rocker with a grain of salt.
Wow. quote: Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I think it's more like this: Indie music people are very open-minded, liberal types when it comes to music and are therefore more likely to be liberal in other matters as well (such as politics).
Thank you. |
| |
| Posts: 1652 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: 15 September 2004 | |
|
Guru
|
I dunno, I think my explanation makes sense, although there are other factors at play as well. The theory I was talking about has been widely referred to when it comes to intellectual-types (professors, journalists, poets). They criticize capitalism because capitalism doesn't reward them as much as it rewards business people who might not have gotten as high grades in school; I see no reason why the same theory couldn't be applied to indie rockers. There is a good article about this by some guy at HarvardEdit: O yeah, and about indie rockers not hating capitalism but just hating Bush...In some cases that is true, but what about all this "Fair Trade" nonsense that you keep hearing musicians talk about? If you asked indie rockers whether they supported free trade or "fair trade" most would say fair trade, which is a very non-capitalist philosophy. I'm guessing they also support increased government handouts to the poor, the old, the young, the oppressed, the depressed, etc. |
| |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
quote: If you asked indie rockers whether they supported free trade or "fair trade" most would say fair trade, which is a very non-capitalist philosophy. I'm guessing they also support increased government handouts to the poor, the old, the young, the oppressed, the depressed, etc.
Actually, what is called "free trade" is not really very much about free trade at all. It's just a slogan, there are always lots of protectionist measures. For instance, intellectual property rights (IPR's) are almost always included in "free trade" agreements, yet they have nothing to do with free trade. Fair trade advocates would do away with IPR's that make it impossible for poor people to afford life-saving medicine or treatment. The fair trade movement is just an attempt to rectify an internation economic situation that has been rigged by currency speculators, multinational corporations, and rich-country governments. Billions of lives are at stake. Another note: Rich people (in the form of corporations and investors) receive far, far more government handouts than the poor, old, depressed, etc.
--------------------------------------------------
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
|
| |
| Posts: 4617 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005 | |
|
Enthusiast
|
quote: Originally posted by Machols: quote: The #1 reason interviews are useless? By definition, musicians communicate best through music, not interviews. So listen to the goddang music!
i dont agree with that at all. just read it a few times. and that is what ill respond to. -I suppose most of what i am Most Interested in is involved with the marketing machine as little as possible, if at all. -The artists that aren't interested in being there, talking about their music, Talking, im not all to interested in. If they show up to a dumb interview, then talk about how dumb the interview(er) is and maybe touch on why. If they Dont want to talk about their music, Talk to me about why. I read an autechre interview, i enjoyed it as much as listening to their music, it in fact *added* to their music. Vincent gallo's interviews also add to everything he does. weak examples, but examples. ----------------------------------------------------- -how about this...John Cage is a musician, but its his words that make the music. that is how he communicates. If john cage did what he did a few centuries back, i dont know what id think about him, but Things Had Changed and he responded. He destroyed music for himself because it no longer meant anything. That he eventually stopped with music all together is a lot more communicative than say, "living room music" or any sound that may have left his body. His book Silence and conversations with him are more important musically than his Music. -4'33'' (for most people) is a bunch of nothing without its explanation. -some quote i keep thinking of and pertains to, goes something like "nothing ever happens until it is described" but i cant quite Gel it into this...so ill just leave it there. -I feel that music (in the ways that it is being talked about here and From Where I Can See, everywhere else) has mutated. the word music does not mean what it at one time did. its Form may still be there, but of what use is that today? who gives a damn about How Beautiful Music Was And If You Close Your Eyes And Pretend, Still Is. Its form is all but destroyed, and i feel has had irreperable harm done to it. This day n age i think all you can do is Respond to that mutation that destruction, and the best and most communicative way is through language. -I feel that way about all the arts, as well as science. Today- Language is the way Back. Language was the way here, to our worldly woes, -is our way back, to god. Not Music. Music goes nowhere. Art goes nowhere. Its been destroyed. It means nothing. and Science? well, we see where that takes us! I feel we are all living in the slow burning apocalypse, right now, a Terrible Terrible Spiritual Backlash unseen by previous men (world wars and world-ending-nuke bombs (and the freaking internet/tv/media) is why brother), and all we can do is talk about it, not fiddle with our NOW irrelevant art, UNLESS that art reflects these feelings of despair, and not even feelings of despair, these Facts of Despair, and even Then, Talk about it. -Today, A singular african tribe dancing and drumming around, doesnt need to say anything about their music, as its soul is isolated and preserved*, (though explaining its significance would give More to what you were witnissing) but yes i agree with what you said up top- in their situation-the Communication Is In The Music. (if you think anyone making music and is in the biz-is Recording and manufacturing music, has an isolated soul, still whole and untouched-fart on that! (and i suspect a few of them know better than to make music, but ...got to have a job, gotta feed the kids...that and Ego- but never mind that!) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay...how about ... -Ill say this...Beethoven...he didn't need to give any interviews or say a damn thing after he hit that last note. The man sitting with his flute a few thousand years ago playing from his heart doesnt need to say a damn thing. Your mom singing about the house or singing you to sleep when you were a child- doesnt need to say a damn thing. it was There, it was music, it was Good. Now? Bullshit ...But...now i think about something like 'Across the Universe' .'Two of Us' .'In My Life' or 'In A Sentimental Mood' and how (yes i do agree with you LinnT) it is 'pure perfection', untouched, unharmed, just Recorded Magic. A Moment. -Isolated beauty- Magic was in those rooms, and as the muses would have it, it was recorded. Should that Not have been recorded? Should they have 'Blah Blah Blahed-we should not waste our minds on such Distractions like music'? ...with my whole heart Yes it should have been recorded, because when the above rhetoric fails me, when i am cold and lonely with no one to talk to...what am i left with? ... climbing up into a sentimental mood' and knowing "everythings okay" music-what a mess
I couldn't get my head around this at first, but now I understand...music should explain itself, or be explained...if it's simply music, then that's self-explanatory...if it has words, then those words should combine with the music to communicate clearly...or the musicians should explain the music... Am I even close? As an aspiring musician I feel it's my duty to understand this... |
| |
| Posts: 126 | Location: Manchester, England | Registered: 21 March 2005 | |
|
Guru
|
quote: Originally posted by Bobthespirit:
Pax, you're implying that anyone who dislikes capitalism does so for self serving reasons.
And besides, capitalism doesn't say 'What sells most is better'. It says 'The smart thing to do is to focus on the stuff that sells better'. It doesn't make any subjective value judgment, it just objectively tells you how to make the most money.
I'm sure some indie rockers are bitter that they aren't making as much money as the popular ones, but there are plenty of successful artists who also dislike capitalism too. Indie rockers who dislike capitalism do so because...they have an ideology that disagrees with capitalism. Not because of jealousy and cognitive dissonance.
I am implying that those who dislike capitalism do so for selfish reasons, that's the whole point of my theory. There may be other non-selfish factors as well, but this subconcious resentment at not being valued by society as highly as others is definitely a key part. I agree that capitalism makes no judgment about the quality of the product, only how much people are willing to spend on a product. My point is that those artists who don't sell as much (despite their superior quality) resent this system because it favors those whose product might not be as good, but yet is marketed better or more accessible. You make a good point that indie bands aren't the only musicians prone to criticizing capitalism (that mainstream artists do too), but if you think about it, every band was under-the-radar at some point. U2, REM, and Bruce Springsteen are all household names today, but they weren't when they were first getting started. And Raving Lunatic...your post probably warrants a longer response than I am willing to give, but to address your Intellectual Property Rights point...if there were no intellectual property rights, what would be the incentive for companies to ever produce "live-saving medicine or treatment" in the first place? If corporations knew they would just have to be forced to give their product away after investing hundreds of millions of dollars into it, they wouldn't even invest in the research to begin with. I would also dispute your point about rich people getting more handouts than poor people. I'd go into details, but there have been books and books written about this stuff, it is hard to fit. I will say though that when corporations get money from the government in order to do something they wouldn't have done otherwise, that is NOT free trade in the purest sense. I'm sure it happens, but when it does, some of that money from the government that goes to corporations will invariably be recycled back into the public's hands, why else would the government give the corporation the money? Lobbying does play a part, but even the most corrupt politician would not simply hand over billions of dollars to a CEO just because they played golf together. There would need to be some sort of public good served. |
| |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Super Bad-Ass Jedi
|
I understand that everyone is responding to everybody else HERE, but this is more of a political/economic theory discussion than a music reviewer discussion. Based on the software we have now, it might not be possible to move this over to a pollitics forum. Go ahead and keep the discussion here IF you MUST, but maybe we can discuss what you don't like about review sources more pertinently to their actual opinions on music? In other words, try to stay ON TOPIC. (I thought one of the things which some people didn't like was that they weren't getting what they expected at certain sources.)
"Naked Woman, Naked Man
Where did you get that nice sun tan?"
|
| |
| Posts: 12945 | Location: Behind the Orange Curtain | Registered: 14 May 2004 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
OK, I'm moving this discussion to the Politics forum.
--------------------------------------------------
I have no race prejudices, and I think I have no color prejudices nor caste prejudices nor creed prejudices. All that I care to know is that a man is a human being—that is enough for me; he can't be any worse.
|
| |
| Posts: 4617 | Location: NE Indiana | Registered: 14 April 2005 | |
|
Slacker First Class
|
I agree with the original poster about the NY Post and The Guardian. I'd also like to add The Music Box: http://www.musicbox-online.com They're completely and utterly independent, and they're very good. |
| |
|
Slacker First Class
|
quote: Well, you read a Pitchfork review, you don't necessarily figure out whether or not they actually liked it. It's more a measure of how cool it is to say you like it, than a measure of actual quality.
Exactly, and not only do you not have an idea as to whether they like something or not, they also tend to be absurdly pretentious, rambling on and on without saying much of anything. |
| |
|
Enthusiast
|
I'm gonna say I like Pitchfork, I think a lot of it is very well written and I have bought 5 or 6 albums PURELY on the basis of a pitchfork review (including what I'm listening to now, which I bought today finally, Blueberry Boat). Some of the writing is a little verbose and OTT but compared to what I'm used to in the UK it's mostly a breath of fresh air. I'll be looking into a few of these other sources you're all referring to. What I buy is influenced by many things - including pitchfork scores, metacritic scores, friends opinions (valued based on my evaluation of their musical taste compared to mine), and price (I am but a poor student, a £7 CD will take priority over a £10 CD).
|
| |
| Posts: 80 | Location: Scotland | Registered: 31 May 2005 | |
|
Slacker First Class
|
quote: I am but a poor student, a £7 CD will take priority over a £10 CD).
I hear you. And the new Dualdisc format just seems like another way to drive up the price. It's nice to get a 5.1 surround mix of some albums, but you don't need it for all of them. I'd also prefer to have the DVD be separate (and not on the flip side) of the CD. |
| |
|
Enthusiast
|
quote: Originally posted by MusicFan-CA:
I hear you. And the new Dualdisc format just seems like another way to drive up the price. It's nice to get a 5.1 surround mix of some albums, but you don't need it for all of them. I'd also prefer to have the DVD be separate (and not on the flip side) of the CD.
Sorry, I'm lost. What are you talking about? Is this another crazy invention by you crazy Americans? I don't think we have it yet over here - they don't call it Backwards Britain for nothing you know. (I made that up, no-one calls us Backwards Britain. Yet.)
|
| |
| Posts: 80 | Location: Scotland | Registered: 31 May 2005 | |
|
"Forum Moderator"
Jedi
|
quote: Originally posted by Tru Blu: quote: Originally posted by MusicFan-CA:
I hear you. And the new Dualdisc format just seems like another way to drive up the price. It's nice to get a 5.1 surround mix of some albums, but you don't need it for all of them. I'd also prefer to have the DVD be separate (and not on the flip side) of the CD.
Sorry, I'm lost. What are you talking about? Is this another crazy invention by you crazy Americans? I don't think we have it yet over here - they don't call it Backwards Britain for nothing you know. (I made that up, no-one calls us Backwards Britain. Yet.)
DualDisc is a new format which has a regular CD on one side, and a DVD on the other. The DVD side usually also has an enhanced stereo mix of the album on it (which requires special equipment to play) and also has videos, etc. It's more expensive, of course, but I haven't seen anything come out (yet) that's ONLY available as DualDisc only. The recent Oasis and Ben Folds records came out as DualDisc and regular disc, although the Ben Folds regular disc was in the special book package only. As far as Bob's question about Q Magazine....I think they're usually pretty partial to Britpop stuff. Keane, Coldplay, etc. I glance at Q's reviews in the bookstore, but I rarely find anything useful in them. More and more, I'm finding fewer review sources that actually give me anything I care to read. Magnet's getting lazy, Pitchfork's annoying, and so on. I guess The Big Takeover is the only thing I read with an eye towards finding a review that will actively encourage me to seek out a new band. |
| |
| Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004 | |
|
Slacker First Class
|
quote: Is this another crazy invention by you crazy Americans? I don't think we have it yet over here - they don't call it Backwards Britain for nothing you know.
Dualdisc is a new thing that is happening now. Some albums are coming out only in that format...others are coming out both in DualDisc and regular format. It's designed (poorly) to try to gain some traction for surround sound releases, but they don't work in slot disc players (like those in cars) because they are thicker than standard CDs. |
| |
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
©2006 CNET Networks Inc. All rights reserved.
|
