David Brooks writes about the fragmentation of a shared musical experience in America. His point is illustrated by the following thought experiment: What would happen if The Rolling Stones started making music today? Is there any realistic chance that they'd be so broadly accepted?
I tend to agree with him, but I ask for your thoughts (or in Hemanzero's case, accusations of bourgeois lamentation for an idealized past).
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Excellent Crotchety Old Man Article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I tend to side more with the Brooks haters:
http://gawker.com/news/bozos-in-paradise/david-brooks-discovers-dozens-of-niche-musical-genres-where-there-used-to-be-this-thing-called-rock-324740.php
http://cold4thestreets.blogspot.com/2007/10/what-fuck-is-david-brooks-yapping-about.html
So here was my first reaction, typed without really finishing the article: Jesus Victor. Jesus Fucking Victor Christ. It is easy to forget that stupid David Brooks' stupid dad said the exact same thing when he reached that stupid age. "Big band and the flappers really captured the pulse of america like this ruck noise could never do..." and so on. We live in a society now where the empowered class idolizes the shit out of the Beatles and the Stones, and (though I have always said that I appreciate the Beatles in their historical context and would rather pinch myself than listen to them today) they cannot appreciate further "progress" (temporal) because their appreciation of that music is inextricably tied to their formative experiences, just like the flapper king above... [jumping out my window] AAAAAAaaaaaaagh....
So I know that this doesn't address the actual substance of the article, though I am sure that it provides the animus. Here are a few counterpoints which I think to be valid. He is tossing out the names of various "superbands" rather flippantly, forgetting the cultural segregation which divided the shit out of the young people in the 60s and 70s. Just because these bands (and indeed that period's music) have become ubiquitously accepted by the boomers and the empowered generation, and just because such music has been beaten into the heads of so many impressionable youngsters since, doesn't mean that at the time that this same fragmentation didn't exist. Though I am speaking with no firsthand knowledge, I "know" that there were a lot of different movements at the time which were quite disparate and indeed likely mutually exclusive for audiences (then jazz and the Beatles, now hip hop and country).
Second, what about the Arcade Fire? What about Garth Brooks in Central Park? I think that David Brooks is saying that no other bands can do these things because they don't do "those things." This article (his not mine, mind you) is based on judgment rather than on anything empirical.
I will jump back out the window now.
http://cold4thestreets.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-fuck-is-david-brooks-yapping-about.html
So much to say, but HMZ, you've made Brooks' argument by bringing up Arcade Fire.
You live in New York Fucking City.
I live somewhere else, and I've heard Arcade Fire on the radio exactly twice, and both times were on NPR.
They are the epitome of the 5,000 seat band. Put them on in front of 20K, and maybe they can fill it a couple of times in NYC and SF, but compared to the Stones or the Boss, that's nothing.
I welcome the firestorm of your disagreement and will respond further in due time.
What about Madonna and radiohead? Both sell out stadiums anywhere in the US. Including red states. And both have longevity too.
In the words of Leon: "What the fuck, Victor? I mean, what the fuck?"
Jbell comes strong with the Radiohead reference. Madonna I discount because she's pop more than rock, and she built her following roundabout the time of U2 and the Boss.
Admitting that much, maybe I can move the ball and say that radio stations are a big part of it, as much as venues filled. Sure Betty Q. Nevada has heard Creep and maybe Karma Police, but what I'm saying is this stuff needs to be RAMMED DOWN PEOPLE'S THROATS BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEIR EARS, HEARTS AND MINDS! That's all I'm saying guys. I know good music, and Brooks thinks he used to, and everyone else should listen to us and march in step until there's a really good Ayn Rand/Huxley-esque book that comes out and shows us what for.
[this is me conceding. sorry for wasting everyone's time. brooks is an idiot. all is well with the he-world.]
WOOT!
Please correct your references to The Name Jesus, using reverence for this Name. Please inform others to do the same. It may interest some of your readers to know, super bands existed before businessmen understood rock music. In the late 60s, to the late 80s, recording companies were feverishly sinking millions into the rock music industry. The musicians were demon possessed for the most part, using medical advances to physically survive, which has led to some old band members living to be 60 years old. Most of them are dead. Satan wants to get paid, so every day a famous sinner dies, but network television keeps viewers ignorant to the horrible lives, and grotesque deaths of 90 % of rock musicians over 45 years old.
Today, the recording industry promises a wannabe star that he/she will be rich and famous, but he/she needs to sign away most artistic rights. This way, when Satan collects his soul from the singer or musician, the copyrights revert back to the recording companies.
That's why recording companies give new artists so much cash to party with. In the old days it took talent, discipline, and savvy to become a star. Now, anyone who is willing to degrade him/herself sufficiently is star material. The media content providers get the recordings done, generate popularity, flood the market with media content, start pumping more cash at these young stars than they have ever seen, and the kids die.
Post a Comment