[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: More Music, More Politics.



        The short answer, Catano, would be Nice Try, Lame Guy. The longer
points are included. 

>On Thu, 29 Feb 1996, James Rocchi wrote:
>
>>         1) Trobridge has it right on- the people in charge think in terms
>> of politics, so unless you want to get buried under that sand you have your
>> head in, wake up. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that
>> Good People do nothing. 
>
>if you think that in this day and age the tired, infantile, naive 
>world-view that punk=good and gov't=bad holds ANY credibility at all you 
>are sadly mistaken.  the idea that all people in positions of authority 
>are evil and corrupt is a fairly useless starting point for accomplishing 
>anything. what happens when you overthrow the current regime?  you either 
>become the power-holders yourself, and by your own definition become 
>corrupt, or you launch yourselves headlong into anarchy, which i doubt 
>will be anything at all like "shopping".


        Punk does not, automatically = good, Major corp does not
automatically equal =bad, Catano....but ignoring things- like evil and
corruption in positions of authority- is phenomenally bad.There's nothing
intrinsically corrupt about power, just like there's nothing intrinsically
evil in a hammer...whether you use it to build houses or smas skulls is
where morality comes in.  

>> 
>>         3) I'm not looking for every song by every artist to be a polemic,
>> or fact filled, or to take sa stand; there's a place for emotion and
>> feeling. But, when Dylan met the Beatles, he asked them, quite rightly,
>> "You have the whole world listening, and all you can say is "I wanna hold
>> your hand ?"
>
>this idea is patently ridiculous.  why on earth should we expect artists 
>who become popular without any sort of political agenda to suddenly adopt 
>one when they have the ability to "reach" people?  this kind of 
>soapboxing comes off as completely manipulative and no one listens!  it 
>happened in the 80's when all of a sudden we were supposed to give a fuck 
>what bono thinks about this and that.  maybe, just maybe, four art-school 
>dropout goofs from liverpool don't actually have anything to contribute 
>to the world of politics.

        Well, then, Michael, maybe we shouldn't elevate people unto
positions of popularity and influence and attention, without asking them
right off the bat what their beliefs are..... and maybe those four
art-school goofs did have something to say; any brief historical review
should demonstrate that.
>
>remember - dylan became a pitiful parody of himself when he got old, fat 
>and rich.  plus - he was political from day one, and he had trouble 
>seeming sincere all tihe time.

        Well, mayhap we should examine how well you expect to age..or ,
less personally, look at the fact that Mr. Dylan has never lost a faith too
many artists have never even tried to find.....
>> 
>>         5) Catano sez :"that the populist trend is not towards cynicism or
>> to skepticism, but to a holehearted avoindance of political matters..."
>> Well, I don't call that holehearted, I call it holeheaded. Saying you'll
>> avoid politics is saying like you have a note that excuses you from
>> gravity. 
>
>you've just proven my point.  i said that most people don't think about 
>politics.  most people tend to avoid political issues and discussion.  


        Which, Michael, is why we're in trouble. Is it possible that we
might get less contemptible politicians if we started showing less contempt
for politics ? 

>look at the grammy's or any reader's poll from any mainstream magazine 
>and you'll see it - we, as a culture, are completely uninterested in 
>matters current and political.  

        Which is phenomenally convenient for the people who do care about
these realms, now isn't it ? 
>
>yes, you're right, you can't avoid politics by not paying attention to 
>them, but that is precisely my point.  if enough people are acting or 
>thinking thew same way it is politically important.  look at sloan net, 
>for example.  the fact is, out of 200, only about 5 or 6 are actually 
>contributing to this thread, and god knows how many are just hitting 
>delete without reading anything.  the fact that you and i and a few 
>others are contributing goes to show that we are not among the general 
>majority who are not interested.
>
>>         6) The Revolution will not be televised. It won't be on Seven-inch
>> either. The Revolution will not be formatted for Netscape 1.1, or available
>> on CBC Realtime. But I think it's coming. And anyone who thinks that being
>> "Apolitical" offers immunity is gonna find out how wrong they are. 
>> "Against The Grain"
>
>this is the lamest thing i have ever heard in my life.  i am sitting here 
>laughing my ass off, because this is so ridiculous on so many levels.  
>firstly, your silly ranting has all the potency of a stoned out grade 11 
>schmuck in a coffee house thinking about hoe the man is trying to keep 
>him down. 

        While I'm not stoned out, or in grade 11, I take the accusation of
"thinking" as a compliment... you might want to try it.    

 secondly, we live in a media controlled world.  of course the 
>revolution is going to be televised, and of sourse it is going to be 
>on-line, and it always has been and always will be on 7" record.  if not, 
>where is it going to come from?  is the revolution going to magically 
>spring forth from you ass?  is it just going to spring up out f a puddle 
>somewhere?  no, of course not!  like james said, music is one of the few 
>unifying forces in a world that is increasingly isolating to the 
>individual, as is television and the internet.  as we as individuals 
>become more and more different, our common activities become the great 
>meeting place for the sharing of ideas.  trust me, the revolution, if and 
>when it happens, will come via the media.

        Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Music as it is right now, for the most part,
is a diversion. 
>
>you've got to use the forces and channels that exist already in order to 
>make any lasting change.  you've got to change things from the inside 
>out, instea of trying to tear everything apart from the outside, because 
>face it, if you can't get work from the inside, you'r never going to work 
>at all.  trying to be a radical and hardcore and shit like that proves 
>nothing, and serves no purpose except to get you branded as a radical and 
>have no one pay any attention to you at all.  all major forces of 
>political reform from mandela to ghandi have been indiviuals who worked 
>their way up inside of a system and changed from the inside.  

        Like Neville Chamberlain, too ? Look, work within, fine, but
There's significant things that have to be TORN DOWN. Hard. 

        Appeasement is BS, 
        Feelin Kinda Intense, 


        James