First of all, to get this out and on to the table, if you tie politics into your music, then you are selling out to one of the most recent fads that are involved in today's music "scene" (or lack-there-of) and yeah, I am fully aware of how preachy this sounds, and this will be the only blog like this that I do. Back on task though. I concur, President Bush may not be one of the greatest guys to ever be put into office, but Hell, we all voted him in there (or atleast the majority as you can blatantly see). Just because a guy makes mistakes when he's in office though, he gets a whole music fad after him? Honestly, if they weren't such crappy bands (Green Day, System of a Down) I would be partially honored. But now these bands are taking what Bob Dylan and John Lennon did best, and commercializing it for personal fame? That just doesn't seem right to me, that the two best song writers to ever grace God's Green Earth are being mocked by what are basically rich kids who think Bush sucks because CNN or MSNBC says that Bush sucks, they feel that that's a way to get a great cheer out of the audience.
I was recently talking to a friend of mine named Paul Snyder, and we discussed this topic quite a bit. He put it very blatantly and straight-forward by saying that these guys are like "Hey, we suck at playing music...but Bush sucks!" And the crowd eats up every bit of it and cheers right along with a ceremonial "Hoo-rah" against the American government, and the sad part is, most of this happens OUTSIDE OF THE COUNTRY.
I just hate knowing that pompous rich boys like the three malcontents in Green Day are ruling the music industry, when people who are far superior in vocals, straight up music talent, and lyrics are struggling to make money off of their record because it's also become uncool to buy music, so iTunes and old time record stores (half of the people my age don't even know what that is...sadly) are down, while free sites/applications like LimeWire and RapidShare are sky-rocketing in numbers.
Also, the fact that crappy emo boy outfits like that of Fallout Boy and Panic! At the Disco, and Cobra Starship (Sorry Taylor) can whine their hearts out on a record and play God-Awful music, that girls that are my age, just because of their hair or T-Shirt line, or shoes, or whatever BS it may be, will still end up eating it all up, and it becomes then "An Industry of Cool" and not about what we (my humble readers) love so much about music. The sad SAD truth is that if rock n' roll, and I mean real rock n' roll, not this stuff that I'm talking about stays the way it is, has a good seven years left before it goes belly up, and then we'll be left with rappers and country artists, and thanks to emo and political music, real music will finally rest in peace, just like Mr. Don McClean predicted it would.
3 comments:
Interesting...I like the cut of your jib. But I'm still going to listen to Afroman.
haha...I see what you're saying, and I somewhat agree. There have been some pretty epic protest songs in the past - Dylan, Lennon, but also underground folk stuff that never really made the airwaves - but the latest just sounds like whiny emo "I'ma go be a rebel now even though punk's BEEN dead and after this I'll drive my SUV to the local mall". But the beauty of the iTunes generation is that we don't actually have to listen to Greenday-we can hear and play whatever the hell we want. So yes, pop music might suck, but there's plenty non-pop to go around. Sorry for the long ranty post, great blog!
First off, let me say that your insight into the musical world is very nice, and that your writing is good. I definitely enjoy what i have read.
Now, I am going to get on my soapbox.
you said "if you tie politics into your music, then you are selling out to one of the most recent fads that are involved in today's music "scene"... " Let me get this out of the way first. Well, maybe i am a crazy liberal, maybe i am just a realist, but Bush does suck. He did not receive the majority of votes in 2000 and if you look into election fraud in Ohio in 04 you may be surprised.
After the many atrocities he has done, including lying to congress and the American people and taking away our civil liberties (parts of our Bill of Rights). I can understand the Majority of the American public being mad (some 70%). It is more then just some mistakes in office, it is the direction he has taken our country.
Musicians have the right and ability to spout their disbelief and anger in the way they know best, and they way they think they can get it out the best. Me, personally, I volunteer and stand out on the street corner shouting and type in message boards and other online sources. If i could sing, i certainly would.
In the heyday of Woodstock and the good 'ole classics and folk, you can argue that the reason for their popularity was because of their political positions. It was during Viet Nam that this became popular and took the country by storm.
"1-2-3 What are we fighting for?
Don’t ask me, I don’t give a damn. The next stop is Vietnam .
5-6-7 Open up the pearly gates.
It ain’t no time to wonder why. Yippee! We’re all going to die."
-- Country Joe and the Fish
While i definitely do like Dylan and Lennon and so many of the other greats more then i like the current music, It is still the music as a voice of defiance and dissent against the current status quo. The people that like that music are the younger generation (just like the 60, it was the younger generation that loved the folk and other movements and the Viet Nam protest).
Now you have to ask yourself, if they style of music that Dylan did (during the folk movement) or that Lennon did was not popular would they still have done it? Both had many styles of music. Would they have been able to stand up to the current business and make their own kind of music even if it wasn’t popular? Or was the popularity of what they were singing about keeping them singing about it? The same can be applied today. If the views were not popular would they still sing it? Or would they go with the current trends? Did Dylan and Lennon stay the course, of did they change when the times did?
Comparing the groups now days to groups then at least style wise is very hard. Its like asking who is better, Garth Brooks of the Red Hot Chili Peppers. It depends on who you ask. Or even in the rock genre. Pink Floyd or Led Zeppelin? Two totally different sounds of music, way to hard to compare. So comparing the sounds of the 60’s to the sounds of the 2000’s is like comparing apples to oranges.
I know you have been steeped in the classics and what real music is, but so many people now days do not know or do not care. Especially the younger generation. They like what is currently popular (I mean that is the same with every generation…Beatles vs. Big Band). So for someone that like the classics, it is hard to have an objective opinion about todays music. I am sure if you as a fellow classmate of yours that loves Panic! To listen to “Like a Rolling Stone” they probably will think Dylan sounds old and bad.
So to you, knowing music history and having a good ear for music makes it hard to appreciate the new stuff. But if your family wasn’t so musical, would you still appreciate the classics so much? Or were you socialized into it? I don’t know. It is hard to tell. The only way that the merits of today’s music will actually be able to be judged will be in 20 years once it is no longer popular. If it survives like the classics have, then it’s a good sign, or if it kinda dies like disco, then we will know its not so good (I am not dissing disco, I like some of its funky beats) Look at “Back to the Future” when Marty plays Johnny B Goode in 1955 it flops. But 1958, Johnny B Goode became a huge hit. The style of music can change just that quickly. I mean in 3 years we went from Pearl Jam to Backstreet Boys (using vitalogy (94) from PJ and and Backstreet Boys (97) from BB)
But back to the Political parts of it. Dylan has endorsed Obama. So I do not know if that gives any merit to the current bands doing the same thing. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Dylan do something to help him out other then the endorsement. So, while people do not like Bush, I think there is a strong message for something different and new. I think Musicians are not just doing it because it is popular, I think they are doing it, because it is their best way of letting their frustrations out, and spreading their message. I think the same is true with music of the 60’s. So many of those songs have extremely heavy political undertones.
The same thing goes for all sorts of mediums and all sorts of peoples talents. Writings from the 60 are different from the 80’s by far. Art changed with the times too, and with modern art, it was the backlash. Now there is post modern, and all sorts. Movies reflect current ideas and attitudes too. Now with internet and blogging, the same thing is still happening. It is people connecting with something that makes it popular, it is not necessarily always merit. But then where does merit come from? Popularity?
The Music Industry is constantly changing. From the swinging 20’s; the the big bands in the 40’s and 50’s; to the Elvis and Chuck Berry in the late 50’s; The Beatles, Stones in the early 60s; folk and hippy late 60’s early 70’s; Floyd and Zeppelin in the Mid 70’s; Disco in the Late 70’s early 80’s; Hair metal and punk in the 80’s; Grudge in the early 90’s; Boy bands and pop in the late 90’s; Hip hop emergence in the late 90’s 2000’s, Emo and pop punk in the mid 2000’s… The list is continually changing. Granted, I know I left out many styles and sub genres (e.g. ska). Music is really a generational thing. Today, the only Hair Metal bands are the ones from the 80’s still playing. Music is constantly dying and being reborn in new sounds. I think the real music McClean sang about is already dead. But the “real” music today is alive.
One more thought, as I have already typed an essay. The reason free music sites are doing so good is the cost. In 20 years, the price of a CD has been stagnant, well actually increased. Even though CDs and the cost to make them has been decreased to almost nothing. Too many corporate fat cats stuck their hands into the music industry, and they are the ones strangling it. Even with Itunes, its still 99 cents a song, or the same price as a CD. I download free music all of the time. I think the Band should get the money, not some guy in an office doing nothing. But I go see as many concerts as I can, because that’s where the band gets a higher percentage of money. If a CD only cost a dollar, I can guarantee you sales would increase. I would go buy music. Or I can download what I want, and burn it onto a disc less then 3 cents. 15 dollars for 15 songs, or 3 cents for 15 songs. I will go with the latter.
Hope you enjoyed some of my thoughts. I do not know if I am right, or if any of this makes sense. I hope it does some what. If nothing else, I hope you enjoyed reading it, and it makes you open your mind a little bit
Post a Comment