BOC-L Digest - 25 Mar 1999 to 26 Mar 1999 - Special issue

[Ted Jackson jr. s2h2]

> From:          "John A. Swartz" <jswartz at MITRE.ORG>
> scene.  'Cause that's what Rock and Roll is about!  It ain't about the
> > French Situationists, or Chinese oppression in Tibet, or identity
> > liberation politics ... it's about getting loaded and having a good
> > time!
>
>
> I realize that some people feel this way, so this is not meant against
> Doug or anyone else personally -- but this way of thinking is bullshit
> to me.  Some may think that's what rock and roll is about - rebellion
> and all that - but for me, it isn't and never was.  It was always the
> music.

Yeah, but see, the music is born from rebellion, frustration, a need
to go beyond what the pre-existing notions of music are.  Rockabilly
was pushing against the barriers of country and jazz.  Electric blues
took elements of delta blues but filtered them thru the urban
experience and evolved into a different idiom.  The Beatles rebelled
against pop music and psychedelicized it.  Punk rejected founding
fathers of the British Invasion.  Metal rejected the flower-power
folks and rebelled.  Music=upheaval, and it stands to reason that
rock journalism would mirror this kind of violent evolution...

I'm not saying I want a bunch of political analysts reviewing it
> either - I just want someone who can enjoy the music - whether or not he
> shows up drunk to his friend's wedding or not.

But sometimes that's appropriate too!  How can you review Body Count
or Rage Against the Machine without involving the political?

 And while Meltzer may
> have plenty of valid musical points, it's hard to see them through his "style".
>
Well, this wasn't the best example of RM's writing either...

> Besides, if it was just about getting loaded and having a good time -
> something I enjoy myself by the way - then why do we here all care about
> BOC being the "thinking man's heavy metal band?"

It's more about iconoclasm than getting drunk.  And BOC punctured
their share of icons in their day...


, and why do we critique
> John Shirley's lyrics on Heaven Forbid as being inferior to Pearlman's
> and Meltzer's?

I like HF quite a bit, incl. JS's lyrics, but they don't have the
depth of RM's or SP's or AB's, for that matter...

theo