OFF: Truth (oh no) and Shock Rock

[Chip Hart]

Ron:
> First, its amazing how you start to make one point and several completely different
> points are made of it.

        Um, I was responding to YOUR post...which made several different
        points.

> yer reply to my post...seems to indicate that you think i
> actually care about the whole deal. nope.

        First, THEN WHY ARE YOU REPLYING AGAIN?  Why did you reply in
        the first place?

        Second, a number of my comments were obviously directed at other
        people, not you.  Otherwise, I would have replied just to you.

> elvis? what, the pelvis thing? that was never intended to shock.
> that was intended
> to titillate.

        First, how do you know?

        Second, what's the difference?  He was BANNED on television, on
        radio, etc.  He had the same effect on his audience that MM has
        on his...it draws attention.  It's a "forbidden" thing which
        makes people want it more.

> and to the crowd it was aimed at, it did. the people who were shocked
> were people who most likely came from homes where bride and groom slept in seperate
> bedsuntil it came time to PROCREATE, then quickly returned to their own beds.

        Boy, you can paint some broad brush strokes.  I am sure you've
        summarized the feelings of *everyone* who was shocked by Elvis
        back in the 50's.

> mozart? i dont know jack about mozart, nor do i care.

        So, blow it off as an example?  In fact, it makes the best
        example to some degree.

        There were RIOTS before and, particularly, after his
        performances.  They were considering SHOCKING.

> what about charlie parker?
> (just a reminder- my post was meant to say: don't be shocked. if i came across
> another way, well now ya know why i never made it as a literary force.)

        Some of his (and others') forays into free jazz really caused
        people to react.  Some violently, even.

>well:more popular than christ. they were inordinately
>popular, and the first to admit it. it became a drag. the statement was a deliberate
>exaggeration (translated stretched truth),
>meant (i believe) to be a wake up call to the fawning masses ala "GET A LIFE!"

        I'm curious to know how you think this differs from what, say,
        Alice Cooper (now, MM) does, but just in a 90's way?

        Even if that IS what Lennon meant - we can only conjecture - I
        think the underlying issue is that he said something that he
        knew would draw attention to them in a shocking manner.  For
        someone to repeat that comment in 1997 would have 1/1000 of the
        effect it had then.  Thus, bands today up the stakes.  That
        should present no surprise.

> who cares? just cos something is real doesnt mean the misguided, impressionable
> kids who make up the bulk ofthe crowd who is taken in by all this need to be exposed
> to all this.

        Well, suggesting that being exposed to something causes people to
        act just like it is, again, ironic in a Blue Oyster Cult
        mail forum.  That was the opening line of my original post.

        Second, why is Lennon's "just saying the truth" somehow
        different or better?

> and what's this trying to justify stupidity by the previous
> generation's stupidity anyway?  that was my whole point- its all been done.

        I don't know if being shocking is stupid.  I almost think it's a
        necessity.

> don't recall hearing any whining.

        Oh, I heard quite a bit.  "These guys stink.  These guys are
        talentless.  These guys aren't worth talking about."  And all
        people do is talk about them.  But I haven't read any serious
        discussions about why Marilyn Manson's MUSIC stinks.

        Anyone care to have a serious discussion about THAT?  Someone
        tell me about how they've stolen their song structure from
        someone else, or explain to me how the entire album is in E
        minor, or how the solos are all punched in by studio guitarists,
        or something.

> take a pill.

        Stop responding to posts you "don't care about."

> and they have been right. things are
> getting worse.

        Wait.  You said, above, that all of this "has been done before."
        How are things getting worse?  I mean, things have "been getting
        worse" since people could first record their thoughts...have we
        been in one loooong downhill slide?

> my point was
> that i dont like the music. IMO it offers nothing new. nothing new.

        A ha!  Music!

        I'm curious: what "newness" has either of the two bands that
        we're supposed to discuss here offered?  Ever?  None, really.  I
        just like to hear Buck's guitar and sing along with Al.  Nothing
        new to it.

> >         As for pretending - *IS THERE ANOTHER PURPOSE FOR ROCK MUSIC?!*
> >         That's what it's all about, ultimately.
> i disagree. but oh well. i think its all about having good tunes to listen to when
> yer driving. i could give a shit about the spirit of rock and roll.

        It sounds like you actually agree with me here.  Really.

> >         Quite right.  Not worth being judgemental.
> having an opinion is not _quite_ the same as being judgemental.

        I agree.  But why be judgemental about the antics - which you
        have admitted are just a repeat of things immemorial - when we
        can talk about the music?

        Hey, peace.  Nothing personal, really.  Just want to talk about
        music.

--
Chip Hart                           *                          chip at pcc.com
People's Computer Company           *              http://www.pcc.com/~chip
15 Pinecrest Drive                  *                     Work:800-722-7708
Essex Junction, VT  05452           *                     Fax: 802-872-8214