Rock 'n' Roll values

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Rock 'n' Roll values

    The recent Ted Nugent brouhaha brings to mind a question . Does rock 'n' roll music and it's practioners represent certain values? Is it countercultural? Is against religion? Is it opposed to polite society? Does it promote promiscuous sex and drug abuse? Does it back a particular political point of view? Should we assume any values associated with the music and it's practioners? 

    My view is that while rock 'n' roll on the whole appears to be rebelling against polite society, there is no uniform or clear code of values it represents nor should there be. What is your view?

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    OK, I'll try to give a relatively simplistic answer to this, by thinking in terms of rock n roll/rock music in its 'glory days' of the Sixties and early Seventies.

    Is it countercultural?  Yes, in the sense that the culture it was trying to change was one of conservative values, oppression of individuality and general sterility. 

    Is against religion?  Not especially.  There was plenty of room for God, especially a cool God who espoused love and peace.  After all, Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell were rock operas.  However, the advent of Black Sabbath's form of heavy metal did see a revolt against God and an embrace of blasphemy.  

    Is it opposed to polite society?  Yes and no.  As with the counterculture question, it wasn't so much against society as it was about trying to change society to something more liberal and permissive. 

    Does it promote promiscuous sex and drug abuse?  Yes.  But it must be added that this was in the context of free sex and drugs being positive things, not harmful or degenerate things.  Reality came crashing down, especially on the drugs, with all the deaths and detroyed lives that resulted.  It didn't really come down on sex until AIDS came along. 

    Does it back a particular political point of view?  Yes, a highly liberal one.

    Again, those are answers from 'the way it was' or 'the dream'.  Things changed as the evolution was shaped by reality.   

     

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    So has rock 'n' roll now lost its countercultural value seeing how much it actually changed the culture? For example, despite the threat of AIDS,  casual, recreational sex and living together without being married is the norm. Marijuana use is widely accepted and seems to be on the verge of legalization, even being given a sort of presidential blessing from Obama. The accepted culture today seems to reflect many of the things that 60's and 70's rock music and culture advocated. Are there still aspects of mainstream culture for rock music to run counter to? For example, is our culture still too consumer driven and do any rock artists point this out through their music? Or has rock music become complacent and part and parcel of the consumer culture? 

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    OK, I'll try to give a relatively simplistic answer to this, by thinking in terms of rock n roll/rock music in its 'glory days' of the Sixties and early Seventies.

    Is it countercultural?  Yes, in the sense that the culture it was trying to change was one of conservative values, oppression of individuality and general sterility. 

    Is against religion?  Not especially.  There was plenty of room for God, especially a cool God who espoused love and peace.  After all, Jesus Christ Superstar and Godspell were rock operas.  However, the advent of Black Sabbath's form of heavy metal did see a revolt against God and an embrace of blasphemy.  

    Is it opposed to polite society?  Yes and no.  As with the counterculture question, it wasn't so much against society as it was about trying to change society to something more liberal and permissive. 

    Does it promote promiscuous sex and drug abuse?  Yes.  But it must be added that this was in the context of free sex and drugs being positive things, not harmful or degenerate things.  Reality came crashing down, especially on the drugs, with all the deaths and detroyed lives that resulted.  It didn't really come down on sex until AIDS came along. 

    Does it back a particular political point of view?  Yes, a highly liberal one.

    Again, those are answers from 'the way it was' or 'the dream'.  Things changed as the evolution was shaped by reality.   

     



    Excellent analysis.

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    If rock culture is politically liberal, it seems it  would be safe to assume it believes in using taxation for the betterment of all, to fund things such as health care and other forms of wealth redistribution. Perhaps it would be so liberal as to advocate socialism or communism. It would also seem to question the legitimacy of politically gained authority and the wisdom of leaders in their decisions about issues of war and peace. Since rock culture advocates peace and love I can't think of any reason it could justify war. So I would say that rock culture advocates neutrality in world politics, with peaceful co-existence as its main goal. If what I am saying is right, this would be another aspect of its countercultural values today.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    The recent Ted Nugent brouhaha brings to mind a question . Does rock 'n' roll music and it's practioners represent certain values? Is it countercultural? Is against religion? Is it opposed to polite society? Does it promote promiscuous sex and drug abuse? Does it back a particular political point of view? Should we assume any values associated with the music and it's practioners? 

    My view is that while rock 'n' roll on the whole appears to be rebelling against polite society, there is no uniform or clear code of values it represents nor should there be. What is your view?



    Surprise!  I have a strong view!  ;-)  Hi DD!   IMO:  

    It was invented specifically to be counter-cultural, it's only good if it is....eph religion, sax, manners, mood-enhancers, etc.

    "For our last number, I'd like to ask your help. Would the people in the cheaper seats clap your hands. And the rest of you, if you'll just rattle your jewelry."  Wanna argue JL's legendary comment was hypocritical as they were playing at the Royal Variety Performance?  I'm inclined to agree.

    I fully expect over the next 40-70 years (I'm 52) that I will still be going to gigs....unwelcome? Probably, but I won't care.  But I have never been, will not now, and will not ever be some crappy superannuated faux hipster (as if there is a good sort of hipster!) with a packed lunch, a ticketed seat, drinking a wine spritzer....spritzer....spritzer. Who with their partner leaves 5 minutes to beat the traffic so they get home in time to moisturise, confirm their Day Planner, and not have sex.

    Rock and ephing roll, eh?

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    So has rock 'n' roll now lost its countercultural value seeing how much it actually changed the culture? For example, despite the threat of AIDS,  casual, recreational sex and living together without being married is the norm. Marijuana use is widely accepted and seems to be on the verge of legalization, even being given a sort of presidential blessing from Obama. The accepted culture today seems to reflect many of the things that 60's and 70's rock music and culture advocated. Are there still aspects of mainstream culture for rock music to run counter to? For example, is our culture still too consumer driven and do any rock artists point this out through their music? Or has rock music become complacent and part and parcel of the consumer culture? 



    IMO, mainstream rock/pop music is a joke.  Two superbowls ago, I was appalled by the performance of that Beyonce Knowles pinup doll thing when she shamed herself and her gender in front of roughly 2 billion people.

    Believe me when I write that I am in no way a prude.  But I, the father of two (and counting) daughters (not that I'm claiming to be an expert!) consider Beyonce, Madonna and their ilk to be extremely poor role models for young girls.

    Mainly image, very limited if any instrumentation or composing skills, attempt to buy cred by buying co-composing credits, it's pathetic, IMO.

    I acknowledge that women in music are strongly encouraged to flaunt their thingies to generate more.....oof.

    But I think Chrissie Hynde, Poison Ivy, Kim Deal, Texas Terri, Joan Jett, etc. are great role models for my and others' young, impressionable girls.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    It seems to me that when we have toddlers wearing onesies and t-shirts of The Ramones, Led Zeppelin and AC/DC...

    ...that the anti-authoritarian attitudes of rock n' roll have been almost totally co-opted (to the extent that they existed in the first place beyond, say, 1971 or 1972.

     

    I think the best qualities of rock n' roll come through from hard work, experimentation, making mistakes, honoring one's predecessors, and paying dues enough to earn one's place at the cultural table.  Like most of life, a little struggle and rejection makes the eventual success that much more rewarding and keeps us humble within the context of a constantly expanding universe and our very, very small place in it.

     

     

     

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:


    While the ethos of Rock and Roll certainly seems to embrace a have fun and devil may care attitude, I think you need to distinguish which drugs when it comes to crashing and burning.

    I don't know that "reality came crashing down" for people who liked to smoke pot or drop acid from time to time. Some such people ended up becomming President of the United States after all. The medical evidence is in: pot is far safer than alcohol and many other poisons of choice.

    But hard drugs, yes, and primarily heroin. It seems a strong majority of musicians who died young were involved in heroin (Joplin, possibly Morrison, Cobain, Staley, etc); plenty of others had a crash and burn period but lived (Richards, Watts(?), Slash, etc).



    You're absolutely right, I should have delineated between types of drugs.  It was kind of a generalized response.  Plus, I'm so accustomed to thinking of pot as an everyday, benign substance that I wasn't really even thinking about it.  But pot has certainly been an integral part of the rock music experience.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    IMO, mainstream rock/pop music is a joke.  Two superbowls ago, I was appalled by the performance of that Beyonce Knowles pinup doll thing when she shamed herself and her gender in front of roughly 2 billion people.

    Believe me when I write that I am in no way a prude.  But I, the father of two (and counting) daughters (not that I'm claiming to be an expert!) consider Beyonce, Madonna and their ilk to be extremely poor role models for young girls.

    Mainly image, very limited if any instrumentation or composing skills, attempt to buy cred by buying co-composing credits, it's pathetic, IMO.

    I acknowledge that women in music are strongly encouraged to flaunt their thingies to generate more.....oof.

    But I think Chrissie Hynde, Poison Ivy, Kim Deal, Texas Terri, Joan Jett, etc. are great role models for my and others' young, impressionable girls.



    But are rock performers really role models at all and should we expect them to be? From the beginning, rock music challenged the straight laced attitudes toward sex, especially in the 50's when it all began. Sexual openness and freedom was part of the package. Who says where the line should be drawn? Flaunting sexuality seems to me to be part and parcel of the rock 'n' roll package. Kind of hard to draw a line once you've let it all loose to begin with.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    You may well ask a question that I have asked on many occassion: Does life imitate art , or does art imitate life? 

    The answer I get is mostly yes , to both....but I believe that life imitates art more than we want it to ...especially in our present society.

    For example: I started listening to Rock music A. because I liked it, B. because it was "cooler" than the Perry Como and Frank Sinatra cr@p that my parents seemed to like (and they undoubtedly thought it "cooler" than the music their parents liked....as kids from the 80's on seemed to think Rap was "cooler" than Rock).

    I grew up in a terrific suburban neighborhood in a nice medium/small town and had wonderful parents and a nice middleclass house. Rock music offered a look at the "other side of life" ( to steal from a Moody Blues song). To me it was like looking through a window at a culture that I was not ( nor did I want to be ) any part of. Did I know songs like "A Little Help For My Friends" or "White Rabbit" were about drugs?...maybe not right off , but the word "pill" in the J.A. song was a strong indicator.

    So as with most teenage kids I was "curious" about some of the things talked about in Rock songs.....things my parents didn't teach me about ( and with good reason). 

    But, if Rock 'N'Roll takes the blame for "introducing" immoral standards and glorifying SEX, DRUGS AND VIOLENCE.\, then movies , books and T.V. must share this blame.

    Just last night I was watching a documentary series on DVD about mass murder, school shootings etc. ( Columbine, Virginia Tech...not Newtown as this made before that tragedy). The experts sited the movie "Natural Born Killers" and the Richard Bachman ( aka Stephen King) novel 'Rage' as being instrumental in som of these tragic events. 

    From my own experience I can say that Rock music is nothing more than music. It can offer a glimpse of another side of life ( not always the darker side, but that seems to draw the most criticism), a chance to hear about experiences you don't have firsthand knowledge about and probably don't want to get firsthand knowledge about ( songs like 'Hey, Joe'). But, just because you like it and listen to it, it doesn't mean you have to become it. I have never used drugs ( I don't even like taking the "ones that mother gives you" ) , I never smoked, I no longer drink...in fact, I am so "unlike" the Rock'n'Roll culture that you'd never know how much I adore the music.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    IMO, mainstream rock/pop music is a joke.  Two superbowls ago, I was appalled by the performance of that Beyonce Knowles pinup doll thing when she shamed herself and her gender in front of roughly 2 billion people.

    Believe me when I write that I am in no way a prude.  But I, the father of two (and counting) daughters (not that I'm claiming to be an expert!) consider Beyonce, Madonna and their ilk to be extremely poor role models for young girls.

    Mainly image, very limited if any instrumentation or composing skills, attempt to buy cred by buying co-composing credits, it's pathetic, IMO.

    I acknowledge that women in music are strongly encouraged to flaunt their thingies to generate more.....oof.

    But I think Chrissie Hynde, Poison Ivy, Kim Deal, Texas Terri, Joan Jett, etc. are great role models for my and others' young, impressionable girls.



    But are rock performers really role models at all and should we expect them to be? From the beginning, rock music challenged the straight laced attitudes toward sex, especially in the 50's when it all began. Sexual openness and freedom was part of the package. Who says where the line should be drawn? Flaunting sexuality seems to me to be part and parcel of the rock 'n' roll package. Kind of hard to draw a line once you've let it all loose to begin with.



    I would agree, except that I think flaunting sexuality was often more a way of selling the music than the aims of the music itself.

    Of course, it's all related to the sexual revolution, but there's a distinction between the marketing of the product vs. content with sexual themes.

    And it never hurt to have said rock n' rollers (or frontmen, at least) be somewhat attractive to the eyes.  In some areas, it just didn't matter as long as the music was tight.  (hello, steely dan!)

     

     

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from WobertWedford. Show WobertWedford's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    When I was a young guy I used to see the Stones at the Station Hotel, Richmond, Surrey, (one of their early regular gigs), in a room with a very small stage at one end and a small bar at the other. During the interval they would go to the bar and have a few beers and talk with anyone standing around. I remember buying Keef a pint and asking him about his musical influences - "in truth it was all the American black guys who played the blues", he replied, naming a whole host of bluesmen. Rock n Roll has no values, it is the artists themselves who have artistic values - their personal lives are just that, their personal lives. Keef in acknowledging his musical influences was both being truthful and shining a light on some unsung (and some barely known) poor bluesmen who later on could earn a decent living from this acknowledgement.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



    IMO, mainstream rock/pop music is a joke.  Two superbowls ago, I was appalled by the performance of that Beyonce Knowles pinup doll thing when she shamed herself and her gender in front of roughly 2 billion people.

    Believe me when I write that I am in no way a prude.  But I, the father of two (and counting) daughters (not that I'm claiming to be an expert!) consider Beyonce, Madonna and their ilk to be extremely poor role models for young girls.

    Mainly image, very limited if any instrumentation or composing skills, attempt to buy cred by buying co-composing credits, it's pathetic, IMO.

    I acknowledge that women in music are strongly encouraged to flaunt their thingies to generate more.....oof.

    But I think Chrissie Hynde, Poison Ivy, Kim Deal, Texas Terri, Joan Jett, etc. are great role models for my and others' young, impressionable girls.

     



    But are rock performers really role models at all and should we expect them to be? From the beginning, rock music challenged the straight laced attitudes toward sex, especially in the 50's when it all began. Sexual openness and freedom was part of the package. Who says where the line should be drawn? Flaunting sexuality seems to me to be part and parcel of the rock 'n' roll package. Kind of hard to draw a line once you've let it all loose to begin with.

     



    I would agree, except that I think flaunting sexuality was often more a way of selling the music than the aims of the music itself.

    Of course, it's all related to the sexual revolution, but there's a distinction between the marketing of the product vs. content with sexual themes.

    And it never hurt to have said rock n' rollers (or frontmen, at least) be somewhat attractive to the eyes.  In some areas, it just didn't matter as long as the music was tight.  (hello, steely dan!)

     

     



    Good point. Take, Wrecking Ball, by Miley Cyrus. When it came out there were thousands of comments on You Tube, and Twitter, but very few had to do with the song itself. Most were aimed at the video, which if you have seen it, needs no explanation. 

     

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    David asks "are rock performers really role models and should we expect them to be?"

    The answer to that is that we are all "role models" for others , or we should , at least, strive to be. However, once you step into the limelight and become a "celebrity" plenty of people ( mainly younger people) are going to admire you and wish to be like you...in some way.  So you "become" a role model by your celebrity , like it or not. Once you reach that height you know that you have power to influence others....a power that should not be taken lightly. 

    This is why people like Ted Nugent , who are no better ( could even be worse) than the rest of us, get used as tools by others to sell merchandise or get votes. This is why Beyonce does the halftime show at the Superbowl, increase viewers for the advertisers....it's not just a football game anymore , hasn't been since the 80's.

    We use the term "selling out" when a Rock star ( or his/her music) becomes more a vehicle for the corporate world and less an entertainment medium.....truly , some artists are sell-outs right from the start. With others it's not their choice.

    But, I am straying from the original "values" topic. Rock was , at first, everything your parents hated....it became "respectable", the Rolling Stones said so in their song, because by the time that song came out, we had such wretched creatures as the Dead Boys, The Sex Pistols,Judas Priest and The Ramones ( and worse to come!)...my God ...the Religious Right, the Conservative Right and your momma and dad were horrified....The Stones by that time seemed..."safe"...if you can believe it!

    I've always felt that there were many, many Rock figures that "used" the "dark" side of the music to enhance the "image." This is evident in performers like Alice Cooper , David Bowie ( my God, my father wasn't even fond of Bob Seger...don't mention Bowie!!!) , later Johnny Rotten. From what I've gathered Alice Cooper and John Lydon are pretty tame blokes who more or less, played a role , acted a role that they didn't real live off stage.....not true of Jim Morrison or Janis Joplin....sadly.

    Do I like the songs of Eric Clapton? well yes.

    Do I admire that he became addicted to heroin?....of course not.

    Do I admire him for getting off it?....yes.

    Do I want to be like Eric Clapton?....not really. 

    Would I do something if he sang about it?....no, but I'd still listen to the song, if I liked it. 

    You can admire some qualities of a performer and recognize his/her faults....after all we're all members of this defective species, just some are more "defective" than others.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    Today's Rock and Rollers value one thing.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to tcal2-'s comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Today's Rock and Rollers value one thing.
    [QUOTE]

    Yes, but teenagers like my daughter have grown up thinking that music can be had for free...she loves music but I don't think she's bought a CD in her life.

     

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    I would agree, except that I think flaunting sexuality was often more a way of selling the music than the aims of the music itself.

    Of course, it's all related to the sexual revolution, but there's a distinction between the marketing of the product vs. content with sexual themes.

    And it never hurt to have said rock n' rollers (or frontmen, at least) be somewhat attractive to the eyes.  In some areas, it just didn't matter as long as the music was tight.  (hello, steely dan!)

     

     



    I don't see how we can draw a distinct line between flaunting sexuality and the aims of music itself. They are intertwined. You pay attention to the music because it comes on sexually just as the performer does when performing it. It's not as if there is a huge disconnect between song content and the performance. Beyonce was not singing about abstinence as she writhed around the stage. I don't see that any music was so pure as to not have elements that looked like marketing vs. the "pure" content of the music. Elvis may have had an inadvertantly twitchy leg at first but it didn't take him long to catch on how to "market" that move when the girls got excited.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    I would agree, except that I think flaunting sexuality was often more a way of selling the music than the aims of the music itself.

    Of course, it's all related to the sexual revolution, but there's a distinction between the marketing of the product vs. content with sexual themes.

    And it never hurt to have said rock n' rollers (or frontmen, at least) be somewhat attractive to the eyes.  In some areas, it just didn't matter as long as the music was tight.  (hello, steely dan!)

     

     



    I don't see how we can draw a distinct line between flaunting sexuality and the aims of music itself. They are intertwined. You pay attention to the music because it comes on sexually just as the performer does when performing it. It's not as if there is a huge disconnect between song content and the performance. Beyonce was not singing about abstinence as she writhed around the stage. I don't see that any music was so pure as to not have elements that looked like marketing vs. the "pure" content of the music. Elvis may have had an inadvertantly twitchy leg at first but it didn't take him long to catch on how to "market" that move when the girls got excited.



    But if that's so, then "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is really just a metaphor for saying "I Wanna *&^% You.  The Beatles weren't overtly physical, but their lyrics were.

    "Rock Around The Clock", "Whole Lotta Shakin'", "Come On, Let's Go", "Please Please Me", etc., etc. are all just making-out anthems.

    Where the distinction perhaps lies - if there is one - is between emotions, i.e. love before sex vs. love after sex...."I Want You" vs. "I Miss You".  I would say that all music is visceral but not necessarily emotional; sometimes it's just a story set to music.

    Until there came a point of singing about the after-effects and jealousy and the disillusionment of relationships.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values



    I don't see how we can draw a distinct line between flaunting sexuality and the aims of music itself. They are intertwined. You pay attention to the music because it comes on sexually just as the performer does when performing it. It's not as if there is a huge disconnect between song content and the performance. Beyonce was not singing about abstinence as she writhed around the stage. I don't see that any music was so pure as to not have elements that looked like marketing vs. the "pure" content of the music. Elvis may have had an inadvertantly twitchy leg at first but it didn't take him long to catch on how to "market" that move when the girls got excited.

    [/QUOTE]

    But if that's so, then "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is really just a metaphor for saying "I Wanna *&^% You.  The Beatles weren't overtly physical, but their lyrics were.

    "Rock Around The Clock", "Whole Lotta Shakin'", "Come On, Let's Go", "Please Please Me", etc., etc. are all just making-out anthems.

    Where the distinction perhaps lies - if there is one - is between emotions, i.e. love before sex vs. love after sex...."I Want You" vs. "I Miss You".  I would say that all music is visceral but not necessarily emotional; sometimes it's just a story set to music.

    Until there came a point of singing about the after-effects and jealousy and the disillusionment of relationships.

    [/QUOTE]

    The Beatles were marketed by their manager in a shrewd way. They were cleaned up and dressed alike but they had that mop top hair. It was a case of stealth sexuality. He calculated the young teen girls would find them cute and dreamy with a hint of bad boy. He played to what he though were their strengths. They were not going to strut around the stage like Elvis because frankly they would probably look ridiculous.

    The main point I'm making is that marketing is part and parcel of rock 'n' roll. and part of that marketing has always included sexuality in one form or another. I find the criticism of performers like Beyonce as prudish as the parents in the 50's who were appalled with Elvis Presley. Only now it seems it is rock music fans who have become those parents. Every young generation moves the acceptablity line a little further and the older crowd always criticizes because they "know better". Doesn't matter that the debate has moved from morality to "selling out" or "doing it just for money" or whatever you want to call it, it is still the exact same debate.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to WhatNowDoYouWant's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    But if that's so, then "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is really just a metaphor for saying "I Wanna *&^% You.  The Beatles weren't overtly physical, but their lyrics were.



    I hear tell that happiness, why, it's a warm gun.. 



    Heh.

    Touche....

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to devildavid's comment:



    I don't see how we can draw a distinct line between flaunting sexuality and the aims of music itself. They are intertwined. You pay attention to the music because it comes on sexually just as the performer does when performing it. It's not as if there is a huge disconnect between song content and the performance. Beyonce was not singing about abstinence as she writhed around the stage. I don't see that any music was so pure as to not have elements that looked like marketing vs. the "pure" content of the music. Elvis may have had an inadvertantly twitchy leg at first but it didn't take him long to catch on how to "market" that move when the girls got excited.



    But if that's so, then "I Wanna Hold Your Hand" is really just a metaphor for saying "I Wanna *&^% You.  The Beatles weren't overtly physical, but their lyrics were.

    "Rock Around The Clock", "Whole Lotta Shakin'", "Come On, Let's Go", "Please Please Me", etc., etc. are all just making-out anthems.

    Where the distinction perhaps lies - if there is one - is between emotions, i.e. love before sex vs. love after sex...."I Want You" vs. "I Miss You".  I would say that all music is visceral but not necessarily emotional; sometimes it's just a story set to music.

    Until there came a point of singing about the after-effects and jealousy and the disillusionment of relationships.



    The Beatles were marketed by their manager in a shrewd way. They were cleaned up and dressed alike but they had that mop top hair. It was a case of stealth sexuality. He calculated the young teen girls would find them cute and dreamy with a hint of bad boy. He played to what he though were their strengths. They were not going to strut around the stage like Elvis because frankly they would probably look ridiculous.

    The main point I'm making is that marketing is part and parcel of rock 'n' roll. and part of that marketing has always included sexuality in one form or another. I find the criticism of performers like Beyonce as prudish as the parents in the 50's who were appalled with Elvis Presley. Only now it seems it is rock music fans who have become those parents. Every young generation moves the acceptablity line a little further and the older crowd always criticizes because they "know better". Doesn't matter that the debate has moved from morality to "selling out" or "doing it just for money" or whatever you want to call it, it is still the exact same debate.



Fair enough.

Some acts have indeed been poorly marketed despite putting out great music.  (Moby Grape comes to mind.)

But lots and lots of questionable music has been marketed to the hilt.  It's no accident that we often speak of music in generational terms, but it does beg the question of how far (or low) the promoters are willing to go to rope in the next generation of music fans.

 

 

 
  • You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Rock 'n' Roll values

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:



    Fair enough.

    Some acts have indeed been poorly marketed despite putting out great music.  (Moby Grape comes to mind.)

    But lots and lots of questionable music has been marketed to the hilt.  It's no accident that we often speak of music in generational terms, but it does beg the question of how far (or low) the promoters are willing to go to rope in the next generation of music fans.

     

     



    Unfortunately, there are certain artists that just may not lend themselves very well to mass marketing, no matter how great we fans think they are. Our personal view of quality may be another person's bitter medicine. "Here, listen to this. It's good for you."
    Plus, the market of fans changes over time and trends come and go. And some performers are marketing machines unto themselves through the image they project.

    It may appear as if the worst music gets the most promotion, but unlike Joe Jackson, I don't believe they can sell us anything. I think the promoters are often guessing at what we like and are taken by surprise by the next big thing. Then they scamble to find imitations and sell as fast as they can. In the meantime, trends move on and something new comes along while the promoters regret pouring their money into cheap imitations that don't sell as well.

     
  • Sections
    Shortcuts

    Share