Well that's exactly what Notyourfriend was saying about Sonic Youth, wasn' it?


That's a really interesting way to look at it and I think it really shows that there are different ways to consider something political, or to decide if something is political or not. If Sly and the Family Stone hadn't done any overtly political songs, i think it would make this point better, but anyway... I think that this way of looking at things is more "academic". I guess I don't really have a point to make here, just talking. But this point is really interesting to me.

Yeah.

And yet you continued to call her a bitch.

See this post:


Do you even know what any of those words mean?

It sounds like the kind of crap students write in essays in order to reach the number of words when they simply have nothing to say.

I know, because I did that a lot.

Everyone, EVERYONE on this thread had a better, more insightful, more interesting point than GD's.

But he knows what all music should be like in order to be better, he knows what we all should be like in order to be better, I just find contradictory the part in which he accuses other people of not being able to deal with different opinions.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make in terms of self-critique. Music, especially Rock music, seems to operate primarily as a monologue to its audience, rather than a dialogue with it. Unless a band can find a way around that (as, to a degree, happened with dance music in the late 80s-early 90s) it will remain having the last word in a way that seems totally counter-intuitive to it being able to operate as a forum for any kind of effective political debate.

Ok i´ll try to decipher.

Originally Posted by Genteel Death
Bands shouldn't really take it in their hands to address issues where they ultimately have the last word on 1, unless they distill their content for creative consumption 2. It's great that they can be a vessel to channel the feelings of discontent generated by whatever affront is mounted on who and where 3, but really, if a clear separation of roles is kept in an order which clarifies better what the political is, and what the creative can actually achieve in order to represent, voluntarily or not, its momentum, there would be less confusion 4, and better music. Or something like that.5

Let us try:


1- here he says bands should basically write music about writing music, because that's what they know of. None of us should bother voicing opinions about things we have no last say on.
2- unless, of course, they feel strongly enough about certain things.
3- its a great thing that art can express people's feelings, thoughts and frustrations, that may be caused by political issues.
4- he finds it too confusing that you have to have your own interpretation in every little case, so making it a rule for bands to not get involved in that kind of subject would help him with that confusion.
5- oh wait, he doesn't know what he´s talking about either.

I don't know anymore. What's the meaning of all this infinite....infinite....nevermind?

but perhaps their goal is not to operate as a forum for a political debate, but more like voice their own feelings and allow people to find comforting in relating to that.

even tho, examples of art influencing politics and vice-versa exist. take rock and roll, for example.

some artists might find political issues inspiring, some might not, so what? why should anyone say how they should or shouldn't do it, what they should address or not address?

Yeah, although I fail to see how music has ever really influenced politics. Music has at certain times been a part of broader movements (like Dylan's association with the civil rights movement) that has ended up having some impact on policy but I can't think of an instance where it's done it on its own.

Saying that, I suppose it could be argued that Band Aid wasn't part of a broader movement but did affect aid policy in certain countries. I'm struggling to think of any other examples though.


I don't think it's a question of whether they should be allowed to so much as how useful it is when they do.

The reason I call myself a feminist is because women are commonly excluded from human rights dialogue. Their bodies are taken to be the transmitters of culture. It is important for me to emphasize my feminism because otherwise, women's rights will be ignored. This is because it has become so naturalized to think of women as fitting into certain subservient roles because of their biology. Women and men are certainly different, but it is impossible to examine their differences objectively without the influence of cultural bearings.

That being said, I am a feminist because i am a humanist.

I don't know if it's a question of music influencing politics as much as music providing solidarity and being the creative expression of a particular climate.

It's like that plus the first time you find out that your computer has a thesaurus.

Which is exactly what it is in almost all cases.

I absolutely agree.

There is no way that humanity in general can progress if 50% is still unequal because of their gender. If you can't improve it for women, you can't improve it for what they call "minorities".

Do you two ever go to anger management classes, by any chance?

yes! and if you look at history, women's needs in social movements are constantly pushed aside because men are assumed to have some natural hierarchy.

I don't think that anybody on this thread is particularly angry.

You'll find some women are much smarter than you two and most men combined. But they are to smart to take you this much into consideration.

thats not the way it comes across.