Tuesday, March 10, 2009

I guess I needs me some edgemacation

Disclaimer:These views do not in any way aim to impede with or discredit the way others feel and some of it may very well be generalized. Now on with the show. Lately I've been wondering what I'm not getting. It seems that all of a sudden "new music",new folk rock or indie as was the term is widely accepted as the smart intelligent music that is thought provoking and cutting edge. But what about the people that the genre does really nothing for. Are they unenlightened because this new sound doesn't necessarily speak to them. Right now people who have read the first few lines maybe thinking wow this guy is out of touch. Why? Why is it that if someone is really into Hip Hop,Country or Top 40 radio etc, they're not pushing themselves to really appreciate music. Is it really out of the realm of possibility that someone could get the same emotional rush from a song or artist that plays to sold out arenas as someone who plays to a sparsely populated club. Again Im not here to say that I dont enjoy some of the music that is all the rage these days as a matter of fact I'm in secret listening to more of it in order to understand and see if I enjoy some of what is new out there. There may be a hint of cynacism in this tone because I wonder if sometimes in an effort to prove how great this off the beaten path style is there is certain air of elitism in that because other music is measured by top 40 charts and record sales that it couldn't possibly be done with the same message and feeling. In the end its just a gripe by me on behalf of the "common" man. Sure there is alot of crap out there on both sides of the argument but for songs like "Old Blue Chair" -Kenny Chesney "Life Goes On"-Tupac or this weeks #20 Im Yours-Jason Mraz (not my thing) but hey play on for all of you who like we are all okay in our tastes......just another tidbit of what its like Being KennyKen

18 comments:

  1. Elitism? Maybe for some. But for me, I just like different sounds - the spice of variety. You can't suggest that groups like Tegan and Sara or Zolof the Rock and Roll Destroyer present "smart intelligent music that is thought provoking."

    ReplyDelete
  2. I tackle this issue slightly in one of my more recent blog posts (shameless plug).

    http://musicfromorion.typepad.com/

    Music needs to evolve. Not all "indie" stuff is great, a great deal of it is schlock, but there are some artists that are really trying to push the bounds of music. All arts can never remain stagnant. If we would listen to or view the same art and form styles over the last 2000 years, without anything evolving, the arts would have died out LONG ago.

    Is all top 40 bad? By no means, but I guarantee a great deal of it we like because its pushed down our throats 24-7. Is all new, groundbreaking indie stuff good? By no means, sometimes what they call groundbreaking just becomes noise making.

    Does new music make Skid Row obsolete? No way, actually, the new music, gives contrast to old music, making it almost new again. Its nice to hear older music in contrasts to the new stuff.

    I think what you sometimes view as elitism is a group of people who say "F you" to the man. We don't want our musical tastes dictated to us by VH1 or pop radio. We are rebelling against the system, and isn't that what rock music is about in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  3. But is that to say that if you dont rebel against the system, it isnt worth listening too, again alot of this is devils advocate...just spitballing

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think in a way, yes - that's the very essence of rock and roll - one of its defining elements.

    ReplyDelete
  5. So we have to adhere to the essence of rock and roll? Then what's country? (oh no... I'm opening myself up to all sorts of shots, here.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. so this is sort of a all widgets are gadgets but not all gadgets are widgets sort of argument...you have to rebel in order to be relevant but GWAR still blows :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its also a "I am unique just like everyone else" argument. In some ways don't the people who rebel against the system end up creating their own "system" same goes for people who don't want their musical tastes to be dictated to by VH1 & MTV but then they end up dictating their musical tastes to others...

    ReplyDelete
  8. The course of history proves that art must change. Rebellion is change. In the classical music genre it was usually rebellion against form (although sometimes they were rebelling against the system, God etc). Rock is rebellion against a lot of things - but the same types of rebellion gets old. Hence its need to change. Rock is certainly against the man, but also often against cliched lyrics, and musical form as well.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Eric, you make a valid point - but art always needs to go somewhere and people will then become fans of that art - if they fall into the trap of not trying to continue to evolve, they will end up becoming what they were rebelling against in the first place. So, we always need to be pushing the envelope, thinking critically and pushing the bounds of artistic expression - easier said than done

    ReplyDelete
  10. so in an attempt to rebel against cliched lyrics and form I suppose this music will eventually become cliched thus forcing another evolution and this current state of new rock will be the "man" in which someone will rebel against again. By then it will have a strong fan base of people who got into it for its rebelious stance against the current mainstream music which began to rebel......you get the idea...will it go round in circles, I wonder what Billy Preston was raging a against

    ReplyDelete
  11. You actually hit the nail on the head. People rebelled against Led Zeppelin - you have to, cause if everything still sounded like Zeppelin, we would scratch our ears off. And it does go in circles - God love Billy Preston.

    So, music evolves. Once you evolve from one genre to the next, it doesn't make the old genre bad - just the springboard for the new genre - one is not necessarily better than the next, but it is different fo sho. We could debate between Mozart and Beethoven, but really, both were brilliant, and both were different. Beethoven rebelled against Mozart - and pretty much everything - he loved his music, but new music needed to keep going somewhere. We would have never heard of Beethoven if he would have just stayed status quo with Mozart.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So I think we all agree music needs to evolve to avoid stagnation, but why to the evolvers always need to justify the evolving as "rebelling against" instead of collaborating towards something different. It seems negative, elitist and smug.

    Jered is saying that the genre evolution doesn't make the last genre bad (or better/worse) but that is often the marketing message that is sent to justify why the evolution is happening.

    If we are evolving into a postmodern society then don't you think the music should reflect that? Not as dissension and a "who's better than who" argument but as discussion and collaboration to a new sound. When is the rebellion against rebellion going to happen?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think it's happening now... and KennyKen is spearheading it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. or isn't he kind of anti-spear heading it?

    I also don't think rebellion seems negative, elitist or smug. But if the world rebellion has a negative context, that is not how I have been meaning it - I consider it a very positive experience . . .

    ReplyDelete
  15. so...no rebellion seems negative, or are we just talking in terms of musical rebellion, obviously that could spin wildly off into a whole new discussion but I certainly think there are ways in which rebelling can be very negative and not yield much in the way of positive results. Like for instance I could stand up right now yell "f this" and walk out triumphantly with my hands in the air spinning a web of obscenities, however in the end even though I claim it in the name of rebellion for good, I think thursdays at midnight are going to stop being a happy time for me

    ReplyDelete
  16. You are talking about rebellion for the sake of rebellion - I am talking about necessary rebellion - as previously discussed, music needs rebellion or it gets stagnant - Jesus brought rebellion when needed - the Berlin Wall needed rebellion - if you want to leave your job, and our miserable, I think rebellion would fit in that case - you can rebel without saying "f-you" - rebellion doesn't just come with molotov cocktails

    ReplyDelete
  17. Jered,
    All those rebellions you mentioned were to overthrow the status quo because it was bad, not as a way to avoid stagnation. Jesus brought a rebellion because the current way of life was bad and would lead to eternal separation from God. The Berlin Wall and the job analogy both imply that the current situation was bad and needed change. So the rebellion in those cases has a negative implication on the previous state and thus musical rebellion holding the same stigma if it is to be compared to those other rebellions. We don't use the words "rebellion", "evolution" or "revolution" without naturally implying that the old state was inferior to the new state.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Like I said previously, we choose to define the word differently - you can even point to a definition, by my use in this context comes with none of the negative implications you imply. And you don't have to agree anyway, nor I with you - I think we both said what we have to say - neither of us will be swayed and that's cool - it is what it is

    ReplyDelete