Fun Stuff > BAND
What's the Deal With -Band X-?
bbqrocks:
What is the deal with deerhoof? Is it meant to make me go castrate myself rather than listen to it?
EDIT: I'm gonna take that back. I see their appeal now.
It's so addictive...panda panda panda...
Christophe:
--- Quote from: Shadows Collide on 09 Feb 2008, 02:34 ---What the hell is a Crass patch???
--- End quote ---
DO THEY OWE US A LIVING
OF COURSE THEY DO OF COURSE THEY DO
OWE US A LIVING
OF COURSE THEY DO OF COURSE THEY DO
DO THEY OWE US A LIVING
OF COURSE THEY DO OF COURSE THEY DO
DO THEY OWE US A LIVING?
OF COURSE THEY FUCKING DO
Johnny C:
Thank you for answering that question far better than the belaboured sigh I was about to convey through typing.
a pack of wolves:
--- Quote from: Catacombs on 08 Feb 2008, 20:00 ---What's the deal with Against Me!
--- End quote ---
Against Me! were a very good punk band who wrote very catchy and reasonably intelligent songs about DIY and politics (ignore Baby I'm An Anarchist, it was a joke song after all). Their early work used acoustic guitars later expanding to use electric guitars and drums on their first album Reinventing Axl Rose, but it retained a lot of the acoustic punk sound and about half of the tracks were re-recorded versions of originally acoustic numbers. Their second album As The Eternal Cowboy was a more straightforward punk record which put some people off but was still pretty good. Unfortunately they then decided to sack all of that off and produce godawful MOR nonsense and pissed off the vast majority of their old fans by becoming the exact opposite of the kind of band their early work eulogised.
Johnny C:
I think the argument being made is that it's somewhat of an error to assume that the rich haven't gone through hardship. It's just a different type of hardship. Some great art can still be made out of it, but it requires a level of depth and self-awareness that allows the specific situations being outlined to be analyzed and presented in a manner that makes it somewhat universal. I suppose that is why you wrote "in an overwhelming majority of circumstances" rather than "all the dang time!"
Still, it seems an unwise gesture to rule out the capacity of anyone to make good art, regardless of socio-economic standing. If the poor can do it, why can't the rich? If you prick them, they bleed. If you tickle them, they laugh. If you poison them, they die. Granted, they can afford very nice pins, feathers and chemicals, but at the core of it they're still people - possibly distorted people but people nevertheless. I haven't had the chance to meet fabulously wealthy individuals but I've definitely met people who haven't wanted for anything in their lives, and they've had great moments and shit moments. People can treat rich people as well or as badly as they treat me or you, and often do anyways.
At the end of the day, the actual quality of the art has about as much to do with the artist's financial status as it does with gender, race and age - that is, both everything and nothing. Best to judge the music on its own merits rather than a potentially false image of the artist we've built up in our own minds.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version