"rock and roll" is music for the enslaved

[Zoomerang96]

"rock and roll" is music for the enslaved.

socially inept, unconscious citizens reflecting the intellect similiar to that of androids, who think they're "fighting back at the system".

rock and roll music is music for the enslaved.

discuss.

 

[corianderstem]

If rock and roll is for the enslaved, then write "slave" on my cheek and call me Prince!

 

[Zoomerang96]

obviously i'm a fan of a lot of rock music too.

but think about it.

i forget who coined the phrase. was it tom waits? dylan? i can't recall. it was probably neither of them.

i thought it was interesting, nevermind who actually said it in the first place.

 

[corianderstem]

Are there still people who would say their love for rock and roll equals "fighting back at the system"?

I agree with the quote in theory, but it sounds pretty antiquated.

Maybe there's a kid out there who thinks listening to AFI is rebellion because it's not the hip hop his classmates are listening to, but really AFI is just another conglomerate with a MySpace page, and the thought of that being rebellion is pretty silly.

But teenagers need to rebel, and if listening to some rock music makes them feel like a rebel, more power to them. It's a better outlet for their teen angst than burning down the local Kwik Trip.

Eh, I don't know if that makes sense. But I must go to bed, so that'll have to do.

 

[Zoomerang96]

no, i understand what you mean.

but i think a lot of people think rock and roll is the voice of rebellion.

i don't believe it is.

if anything, it is THE voice of conformity. look at the people who generally listen to it.

 

[lmjhitman]

corporate/radio rock is THE WORST. even most modern rock is pretty bad.

seriously, anyone who listens to nickelback and thinks that they're all bad-ass or something, needs to have their head examined.

but there's still some good stuff being made that has elements of rock in it. like pretty much most of the stuff that you and i listen to, bear. but would you even call that rock?

 

[Screwtape2]

rock and roll music is music for the enslaved.

If anything, rock and roll has the potential of being the voice of the free. Rock and roll can be a rebellion against politics but also a rebellion against human nature. It can be like any other art form and shake the darkness and primal callings out. Rock and roll is surgery on one's own soul. The music can be as simple as punk rock or as complex as art rock but it will always be a blood stain calling to the vacuum it once filled. Rock and roll is the expression of the horror of existence, mortality and emotions. With only three chords and the truth. "Music for the enslaved?" No. Music that brings peace to pain cannot enslave, only save.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

I don't think there's such thing as a voice of rebellion, or at least not practically speaking. How can the voice of 'the rebellion' transfer from the oppressed to the oppressor without using the language, the mannerisms, the medium, etc that the oppressor uses? It can't. To truly be understood, the oppressed must become uniform with the oppressor to communicate his/her oppression. In doing so, the oppressed becomes (at best) alien to both the dynamic nature of the rebellion itself (because he/she is now akin to the oppressor) and the figure of oppression (because he/she is telling the oppressor where to stick it).

If you leave this hypothetical oppressed/oppressor dynamic behind and just talk about conformity, it's impossible to escape. You can conform to the majority trend, or you can conform to the counter-trend, or you can conform to the counter-trend of the counter-trend, ad nauseum.

Realising this, as long as you're happy and like the music you're listening to, and the messages you're hearing, then who the hell cares what you're listening to because everyone else can shove it. Without making an absurd hyperbole, the names of the people with truly unique ideas throughout our history can probably fit on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been intelligent, capable, visionary people. So what if most of the majority are, and always have been, complacent and dim? The world isn't turned on the whims of the general body of conformers, but by the exceptional particular individuals -- it just seems to me that we try to pass off our 'rock and roll' stars as these visionaries, when in truth none of them have any groundbreaking contributions to make and are in no way exceptional.

 

[Axver]

Maybe there's a kid out there who thinks listening to AFI is rebellion because it's not the hip hop his classmates are listening to, but really AFI is just another conglomerate with a MySpace page, and the thought of that being rebellion is pretty silly.

But teenagers need to rebel, and if listening to some rock music makes them feel like a rebel, more power to them. It's a better outlet for their teen angst than burning down the local Kwik Trip.

This seems appropriate:

The music of rebellion makes you want to rage
But it's made by millionaires who are nearly twice your age
- The Sound Of Muzak, Porcupine Tree

 

[Salome]

I would say that the people who think they are "fighting back at the system" are seriously delusional
maybe enslaved to their delusional ideas even

everyone who takes music/rock and roll for what it is can get a lot out of it though

 

[INDY500]

I'm a gonna raise a fuss
I'm a gonna raise a holler

about a workin' all summer
just to try to earn a dollar

ev'ry time I call my Baby
try to get a date

my Boss says
No dice, Son,you gotta work late.

Sometimes I wonder what I'm a gonna do
but there ain't no cure for the Summertime Blues.

 

[yertle-the-turtle]

Rock and roll is still pretty useful as a soundtrack for attempted social change:

Cui Jian reached the apogee of his popularity during the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, when "Nothing to My Name" became an anthem to student protestors. Before the protests were violently broken up on June 4-5, Cui frequently appeared with the students and was affirmed by Wu'er Kaixi, one of the prominent leaders of the movement, as highly influential among young Chinese of the time. The following government crackdown forced many rock musicians, Cui Jian included, into hiding in the provinces. Surprisingly, sanctions proved relatively temporary and Cui was able to return to Beijing shortly afterward. In early 1990, he began his first rock tour entitled the "New Long March", with ten concerts scheduled in Zhengzhou, Wuhan, Xi'an, Chengdu and others. 1 million yuan was donated to help pay for the 1989 Asian Games. Probably because of the wild enthusiasm with which his tour was greeted, the latter half was cancelled by government order.

 

[lmjhitman]

seriously, this one star bullshit needs to stop.

someone's being a real prick.



[/offtopic]

 

[elevation2u]

 

[Zoomerang96]

actually, it's a compliment, hitman.

anytime i can be lumped in with zedbetty by others, it means they think of us as being (at least close) on the same level.

i couldn't ask for much more, really.

 

[Zoots]

zedbetty

why the hell do you call him that?

 

[Zoomerang96]

I don't think there's such thing as a voice of rebellion, or at least not practically speaking. How can the voice of 'the rebellion' transfer from the oppressed to the oppressor without using the language, the mannerisms, the medium, etc that the oppressor uses? It can't. To truly be understood, the oppressed must become uniform with the oppressor to communicate his/her oppression. In doing so, the oppressed becomes (at best) alien to both the dynamic nature of the rebellion itself (because he/she is now akin to the oppressor) and the figure of oppression (because he/she is telling the oppressor where to stick it).

If you leave this hypothetical oppressed/oppressor dynamic behind and just talk about conformity, it's impossible to escape. You can conform to the majority trend, or you can conform to the counter-trend, or you can conform to the counter-trend of the counter-trend, ad nauseum.

Realising this, as long as you're happy and like the music you're listening to, and the messages you're hearing, then who the hell cares what you're listening to because everyone else can shove it. Without making an absurd hyperbole, the names of the people with truly unique ideas throughout our history can probably fit on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper, but that doesn't mean that there haven't been intelligent, capable, visionary people. So what if most of the majority are, and always have been, complacent and dim? The world isn't turned on the whims of the general body of conformers, but by the exceptional particular individuals -- it just seems to me that we try to pass off our 'rock and roll' stars as these visionaries, when in truth none of them have any groundbreaking contributions to make and are in no way exceptional.

good heavens that was good.

thanks for that.

i'll try and sum that up, to see if i understood correctly...

essentially, it's the listener who makes the band/artist out to be far, far greater than is at all necessary or required to appreciate said group/artist's material?

 

[Zoomerang96]

why the hell do you call him that?

because i sometimes get him and sting2 confused.

everyone's entitled to a few honest errors, zootlesque. :blush:

 

[Zoots]

 

[angelordevil]

"rock and roll" is music for the enslaved.

socially inept, unconscious citizens reflecting the intellect similiar to that of androids, who think they're "fighting back at the system".

The very best artists, *cough, Radiohead* tackle this idea head on. It's amazing that they can infiltrate the Nickelback bubble with their weirdness and take up shelf space at Wal-mart.

It basically all comes down to taste, ultimately. While I may believe that my music is pure and life-changing, a Nickelback fan could say the same thing. That's the really scary thing.

In terms of 'rebellion', I actually wonder if there's a rebellion against those rock-stars-with-a-cause. I mean, isn't it cooler now to sit by your pool and smoke a crack pipe than to worry about the ozone layer?

 

[LMP]

The very best artists, *cough, Radiohead* tackle this idea head on. It's amazing that they can infiltrate the Nickelback bubble with their weirdness and take up shelf space at Wal-mart.

It basically all comes down to taste, ultimately. While I may believe that my music is pure and life-changing, a Nickelback fan could say the same thing. That's the really scary thing.

In terms of 'rebellion', I actually wonder if there's a rebellion against those rock-stars-with-a-cause. I mean, isn't it cooler now to sit by your pool and smoke a crack pipe than to worry about the ozone layer?

If my MTV career doesn't work out, I was thinking I'd buy a gun and start selling crack. I would be like a laid back crack dealer, though. Not mean or anything. I'd just be like 'Hey boys, how's it going? Want some crack?"

But really now, some people just stay in that collective bubble of "the past 6 years" and are Clear Channel's radiobitches.

It's an elitist stance to say "Well the music I listen to is just better than yours", and most of the time I disagree with that, but some bands such as Nickelback, Staind, POD, all of that nonsense make me rescind those words.

 

[lmjhitman]

if you say so, bear. i still think it's chickenshit.

actually, it's a compliment, hitman.

anytime i can be lumped in with zedbetty by others, it means they think of us as being (at least close) on the same level.

i couldn't ask for much more, really.

what do you mean 'lumped in with zedbetty'. you mean you're not one and the same?

oh sure. next you're gonna say that you're actually caisenema!

my world is imploding, guys.

 

[unforgettableFOXfire]

essentially, it's the listener who makes the band/artist out to be far, far greater than is at all necessary or required to appreciate said group/artist's material?

Short answer: That's exactly what I'm saying.


Longer answer which sortof addresses the implications of being part of blind conformity: It seems that few people have some standard by which to judge quality and so they fall back on common public opinion -- society is their standard. Sure, they could judge the song based on music theory, but who studies music theory anymore? Who studies language and can tell the difference between a good lyric and a bad lyric (in terms of pleasantness of sound and a meaning which the audience can relate to in some way)? Who has an eye keen enough to discern honest integrity from superficial showmanship, since this is clearly a component of contemporary music as well? Who considers these things when judging a song? Should we all make these considerations? Probably, but I suspect almost noone tries, and fewer still actually do it.

Some artists do have vast resevoirs of talent and write compelling tune after compelling tune, album after album. To use a darts metaphor: bullseye, bullseye, bullseye, bullseye. Many more throw blindly at a target they can't see and occassionally hit the bullseye. Of course, when the fans don't know how to play darts either, it's easy for the industry to tell the fans 'guess what, your favourite band just hit the bullseye again!' and to have the people shout 'rock and fuckin roll' while all the time the dart is stuck in the wall 3 feet right of the board. I speculate that this is what happens the majority of the time. A lot of people who don't know what they're talking about concur about something but don't know why and couldn't tell you if asked; they're just taking someone's word for it. If you don't understand where you're at now, how can you possibly understand revolutionary changes when they present themselves? How can you tell if you're being deceived, for that matter? And it is deception: at all levels, whether its top-20 hits or indie rock clubs, you're being sold a name, a brand, an idea, a pretension. Just because its underground doesn't mean it has integrity, nor does financial success equate to great music.

People who use the band/artists credentials as a basis for judging the quality of the art are, I suggest, wrong and participating in any number of varieties of hype. Judgement of a work must be based on its own merits with everything cut out that is inessential: which includes whether the artist has a history of producing good music, or if he/she has a PhD in Music. Having experience and knowledge isn't a guaruntee of successful execution. Just because they're underground and aren't making money doesn't mean they aren't posturing and trying to sell the notion of integrity. Cast all the bullshit aside and let the music speak for itself.

Of course, whether or not its practical to make sure our judgements aren't just lazy regurgitations is a different matter. It's definitely easier to let other people think for you and just go with the flow.

 

[Canadiens1131]

Rock and Roll can be anything. The Stones were fighting the system in the 60s, and milking it in the 70s. Whatever you like, listen to. Quiet Riot was hilarious and if you were eight, you loved the Come On Feel the Noise video as you lamented your square parents. Now Quiet Riot plays birthday parties.
















Quiet Riot at my birthday

 

[dietcokeofevil]

At its best...ROCK AND ROLL STOPS THE TRAFFIC.

But after the show we all still go back to our banks filled like cathedrals, MTV Playboy Crib mansions, etc

Rock and Roll, like any attempted movement shouts at the masses for change...But the change is scant and short lived. The human animal is easily inspired, but difficult to transform.

 

[hippy]

"rock and roll" is music for the enslaved.

socially inept, unconscious citizens reflecting the intellect similiar to that of androids, who think they're "fighting back at the system".

rock and roll music is music for the enslaved.

well, I guess it's a good thing I listen to rock 'n' roll, then!

It's the "ad" that drains all the fun out of it.

 

[GibsonGirl]

unforgettableFOXfire, you've made some excellent, extremely well-written points in this thread. Particularly this:

People who use the band/artists credentials as a basis for judging the quality of the art are, I suggest, wrong and participating in any number of varieties of hype. Judgement of a work must be based on its own merits with everything cut out that is inessential: which includes whether the artist has a history of producing good music, or if he/she has a PhD in Music. Having experience and knowledge isn't a guaruntee of successful execution. Just because they're underground and aren't making money doesn't mean they aren't posturing and trying to sell the notion of integrity. Cast all the bullshit aside and let the music speak for itself.

Too many people seem to base the music they listen to on the reactions it will get from others. A fourteen-year-old kid will put on Marilyn Manson, even though he doesn't like the music itself, as he thinks it will piss off his parents. A new U2 fan will hype up "One," since lots of other fans think it's a good track. A fan of indie music will worship a shitty album, just because Pitchfork gave it a 9.0 and it's on an independent label.

I think the moment you start to listen to something and "enjoy" it for any reason other than the music itself, you cease to be a music fan. You listen to something because you genuinely like it, not because you're expected to like it. Conformity is a terrible thing.