The Shoegazing Thread

General music discussion.
Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 19 Sep 2017, 4:49pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 4:40pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 4:28pm
However, the state of the music industry is such that being that creatively ambitious must be difficult when you also have to spend your time thinking about contracts, touring, and dealing with executives and tight deadlines. Nothing's black and white, I guess.
Production and distribution technology has liberated musicians from much of the need for record companies, all of which encourages being creative and faithful to oneself, but the cost is that even fewer artists can make enough money for the mythical rock star life now, let alone be fully independent musicians. Personally, I like that trade off, if for no other reason than the destruction of the record conglomerates would be a very good thing. But I'm also not a musician, so there is that.
As a recording musician, my view is that by and large, I'm very pleased with how things are going, as I loathe record labels. However, I'm annoyed with a few little niggles:

1. I have no desire to be a rock god, but one of my greatest wishes in life is to not have to work. So that part is certainly missed. Not wealth, just livable income from making music.

2. There's almost too much out there now. It makes discovering things a lot harder, based on how much free time I have. I often feel overwhelmed because my FOMO makes me want to consume as much unknown material as possible, so I don't go back and re-listen to things which means I never become familiar with anything.

3. There's DEFINITELY too many bands out there, which means that coming up with a band name has been impossible for me since every single name has already been taken, even nonsense words that I just made up. You might say that a lot of these bands are from 8 years ago and only ever released one song, but when they snapped up all the good URLs at Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc., it's pretty galling.
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 19 Sep 2017, 5:23pm

Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 4:49pm
1. I have no desire to be a rock god, but one of my greatest wishes in life is to not have to work. So that part is certainly missed. Not wealth, just livable income from making music.

2. There's almost too much out there now. It makes discovering things a lot harder, based on how much free time I have. I often feel overwhelmed because my FOMO makes me want to consume as much unknown material as possible, so I don't go back and re-listen to things which means I never become familiar with anything.

3. There's DEFINITELY too many bands out there, which means that coming up with a band name has been impossible for me since every single name has already been taken, even nonsense words that I just made up. You might say that a lot of these bands are from 8 years ago and only ever released one song, but when they snapped up all the good URLs at Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc., it's pretty galling.
1. Unfortunately, whatever art form one pursues, the vast majority never escape having to have a "real" job to support their passion. A friend who wanted to be a writer had a hard time accepting that making enough from his writing so that he wouldn't need another job was against the odds. It's shitty.
2. That is an argument in favour of the gatekeeping function of record companies. Limiting the market and publicizing the best artists would help us to not be overwhelmed, but then you're reliant on someone else's initial decision. That's also the basic function of payola—shrinking the market to create a more predictable pattern. It's also possible to argue that the current wide-open market inhibits the possibility of using music to build an oppositional politics. It's just to scattered and tailored to more and more discrete tastes that it's almost impossible to build something like a mass movement from it.
3. I never really thought of that. A curious problem.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:23pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 4:49pm
1. I have no desire to be a rock god, but one of my greatest wishes in life is to not have to work. So that part is certainly missed. Not wealth, just livable income from making music.

2. There's almost too much out there now. It makes discovering things a lot harder, based on how much free time I have. I often feel overwhelmed because my FOMO makes me want to consume as much unknown material as possible, so I don't go back and re-listen to things which means I never become familiar with anything.

3. There's DEFINITELY too many bands out there, which means that coming up with a band name has been impossible for me since every single name has already been taken, even nonsense words that I just made up. You might say that a lot of these bands are from 8 years ago and only ever released one song, but when they snapped up all the good URLs at Bandcamp, Soundcloud, etc., it's pretty galling.
1. Unfortunately, whatever art form one pursues, the vast majority never escape having to have a "real" job to support their passion. A friend who wanted to be a writer had a hard time accepting that making enough from his writing so that he wouldn't need another job was against the odds. It's shitty.
2. That is an argument in favour of the gatekeeping function of record companies. Limiting the market and publicizing the best artists would help us to not be overwhelmed, but then you're reliant on someone else's initial decision. That's also the basic function of payola—shrinking the market to create a more predictable pattern. It's also possible to argue that the current wide-open market inhibits the possibility of using music to build an oppositional politics. It's just to scattered and tailored to more and more discrete tastes that it's almost impossible to build something like a mass movement from it.
3. I never really thought of that. A curious problem.
1. Oh sure, I never had any delusions that I'd ever "make it." It's really more a result of me hating the obligation of employment than wanting to be a "professional" musician.

2. Granted, I hate to complain about having too much choice. I'm certainly grateful for that aspect of the internet, I just sort of feel like I'm not really making any meaningful connections with anything lately. I have had countless conversations regarding your second point. It's like we have to redefine what movements mean. We had punk, grunge, gangsta, etc. The new movement is diffusion.

3. Suggestions welcome!
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 19 Sep 2017, 6:31pm

Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
2. Granted, I hate to complain about having too much choice. I'm certainly grateful for that aspect of the internet, I just sort of feel like I'm not really making any meaningful connections with anything lately. I have had countless conversations regarding your second point. It's like we have to redefine what movements mean. We had punk, grunge, gangsta, etc. The new movement is diffusion.
One of the questions I raised with my students last year, and will again this year, is whether the proliferation of subgenres after 1970ish was a good thing. From the standpoint of individual choice and creativity, of course it was (and that's what all my students argued). But from a social and oppositional political standpoint, it could be seen as a disaster, as validating neoliberalism's atomizing effects via the subservience to the free market. If we're encouraged to pursue our individualized interests, and the market can cater to them in that way, how do we build movements? How do we learn to put aside individual and immediate interests in favour of deferral and a group mentality? Music becomes just another neutered commodity, even the ostensibly rebellious kind, if done in, at best, small groups. Good music, but to little greater end than entertainment. Weird as it sounds, is it more important that we can't get what we want from art as individuals for it to be valuable?
3. Suggestions welcome!
Take any classic band name and add New to it. The New Beatles, the New Kinks, the New New Yardbirds, etc. Or just add X- to any classic band name and make it sound like you've got a radical take on them. Also, put a lawyer on retainer.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 19 Sep 2017, 8:01pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 6:31pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
2. Granted, I hate to complain about having too much choice. I'm certainly grateful for that aspect of the internet, I just sort of feel like I'm not really making any meaningful connections with anything lately. I have had countless conversations regarding your second point. It's like we have to redefine what movements mean. We had punk, grunge, gangsta, etc. The new movement is diffusion.
One of the questions I raised with my students last year, and will again this year, is whether the proliferation of subgenres after 1970ish was a good thing. From the standpoint of individual choice and creativity, of course it was (and that's what all my students argued). But from a social and oppositional political standpoint, it could be seen as a disaster, as validating neoliberalism's atomizing effects via the subservience to the free market. If we're encouraged to pursue our individualized interests, and the market can cater to them in that way, how do we build movements? How do we learn to put aside individual and immediate interests in favour of deferral and a group mentality? Music becomes just another neutered commodity, even the ostensibly rebellious kind, if done in, at best, small groups. Good music, but to little greater end than entertainment. Weird as it sounds, is it more important that we can't get what we want from art as individuals for it to be valuable?
As much as we like music though, I'd have a hard time putting aside my own tastes in order for more people to like a particular piece of art. I mean, isn't that going to lead to nothing but and army of Smashmouths? Also, is it the responsibility of music to have anything to do with politics or social good (I don't necessarily disagree, but I haven't thought of art in this way so I'm kind of feeling out my thoughts as I go here)? As I understand art, its main purpose is to be an representation of the individual artist's raging turmoil or whatever. Certain artists might have a social agenda, but art in and of itself is born out of individual expression, isn't it? Or am I going on a tangent and you're only talking about commodified art?
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 8:26am

Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 8:01pm
As much as we like music though, I'd have a hard time putting aside my own tastes in order for more people to like a particular piece of art. I mean, isn't that going to lead to nothing but and army of Smashmouths? Also, is it the responsibility of music to have anything to do with politics or social good (I don't necessarily disagree, but I haven't thought of art in this way so I'm kind of feeling out my thoughts as I go here)? As I understand art, its main purpose is to be an representation of the individual artist's raging turmoil or whatever. Certain artists might have a social agenda, but art in and of itself is born out of individual expression, isn't it? Or am I going on a tangent and you're only talking about commodified art?
A fair amount to unpack here, so this will end up being really general (and maybe meandering). Your statement about the purpose of art reflects the Modernist perspective, popularly associated with mid-century highbrows, where society is regarded as oppressive. Its origins were in the effects of industrial capitalism and urbanization, which destroyed old ways of living, but by the 20th c the real evidence of modern life's malignancy was that the masses didn't know their place and dragged civilization down. (This wasn't just the opinion of the rich; by mid-century, many left-wing thinkers also saw the masses as a problem, not the solution.) Modernism saw the way forward in producing shocking, baffling art that would, to the discerning eye, reveal the corrupting nature of society, to break people of their slumber that social norms were healthy. The only way an artist could produce such art was by segregating himself as much from society and allow his muse to inspire him. Really, any art that comforted or was easily understood was part of the problem, so Modernist art had to be difficult and unsettling. There is a social purpose buried in there, about destroying the illusion of a beneficial society, but it is fundamentally elitist and escapist.

What I'm suggesting—which isn't to say advocating; I'm following this more as a way of thinking about why rock or other culture has been a bit of a dead end—is that neoliberalism has encouraged that "society is evil" stance but in a highly commercialized way, so that our cultural needs are satisfied as individuals and that we don't have to interact with anything we don't want to, while keeping the larger system humming along. Self-segregation as self-atomization, which benefits capitalism greatly. Would less choice, more restrictions mean that we would have to interact more with others whom we have differences? Wasn't that part of rock n roll's initial success, getting kids from different classes, races, sexes, geographies all into the same music? Certainly that has been exaggerated and romanticized—it's been argued that for all the take about breaking down class barriers, white audiences still preferred white performers—but we can't even plausibly think of rock music as encouraging a rebellious youth culture as was accepted in the mid to late 60s. Punk and metal and hip hop may play the "fuck the system" game, but as long as they're geared to smaller and smaller slivers of audiences, the system is just fine. I know that the toothpaste isn't getting put back in the tube on this, but what I'm arguing is that rock (or any cultural form) has lost any oppositional political potential because it encourages self-satisfaction, both for the artist and the audience. It's not a complete waste of time, of course, as it can still inspire individuals to think beyond themselves, but as a real means of promoting a group politics of some kind, what's happened since 1970ish has taken as further and further from that possibility. Music has gotten more diverse and more creative, but less socially and politically significant because it has fundamentally validated neoliberalism's glories of the free market, society is evil perspective. That's the tragedy I want people to consider (even as I have no useful remedy).
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 20 Sep 2017, 12:48pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 8:26am
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 8:01pm
As much as we like music though, I'd have a hard time putting aside my own tastes in order for more people to like a particular piece of art. I mean, isn't that going to lead to nothing but and army of Smashmouths? Also, is it the responsibility of music to have anything to do with politics or social good (I don't necessarily disagree, but I haven't thought of art in this way so I'm kind of feeling out my thoughts as I go here)? As I understand art, its main purpose is to be an representation of the individual artist's raging turmoil or whatever. Certain artists might have a social agenda, but art in and of itself is born out of individual expression, isn't it? Or am I going on a tangent and you're only talking about commodified art?
A fair amount to unpack here, so this will end up being really general (and maybe meandering). Your statement about the purpose of art reflects the Modernist perspective, popularly associated with mid-century highbrows, where society is regarded as oppressive. Its origins were in the effects of industrial capitalism and urbanization, which destroyed old ways of living, but by the 20th c the real evidence of modern life's malignancy was that the masses didn't know their place and dragged civilization down. (This wasn't just the opinion of the rich; by mid-century, many left-wing thinkers also saw the masses as a problem, not the solution.) Modernism saw the way forward in producing shocking, baffling art that would, to the discerning eye, reveal the corrupting nature of society, to break people of their slumber that social norms were healthy. The only way an artist could produce such art was by segregating himself as much from society and allow his muse to inspire him. Really, any art that comforted or was easily understood was part of the problem, so Modernist art had to be difficult and unsettling. There is a social purpose buried in there, about destroying the illusion of a beneficial society, but it is fundamentally elitist and escapist.

What I'm suggesting—which isn't to say advocating; I'm following this more as a way of thinking about why rock or other culture has been a bit of a dead end—is that neoliberalism has encouraged that "society is evil" stance but in a highly commercialized way, so that our cultural needs are satisfied as individuals and that we don't have to interact with anything we don't want to, while keeping the larger system humming along. Self-segregation as self-atomization, which benefits capitalism greatly. Would less choice, more restrictions mean that we would have to interact more with others whom we have differences? Wasn't that part of rock n roll's initial success, getting kids from different classes, races, sexes, geographies all into the same music? Certainly that has been exaggerated and romanticized—it's been argued that for all the take about breaking down class barriers, white audiences still preferred white performers—but we can't even plausibly think of rock music as encouraging a rebellious youth culture as was accepted in the mid to late 60s. Punk and metal and hip hop may play the "fuck the system" game, but as long as they're geared to smaller and smaller slivers of audiences, the system is just fine. I know that the toothpaste isn't getting put back in the tube on this, but what I'm arguing is that rock (or any cultural form) has lost any oppositional political potential because it encourages self-satisfaction, both for the artist and the audience. It's not a complete waste of time, of course, as it can still inspire individuals to think beyond themselves, but as a real means of promoting a group politics of some kind, what's happened since 1970ish has taken as further and further from that possibility. Music has gotten more diverse and more creative, but less socially and politically significant because it has fundamentally validated neoliberalism's glories of the free market, society is evil perspective. That's the tragedy I want people to consider (even as I have no useful remedy).
Very thought-provoking. I'll be thinking on this for a while. I'm still a little fuzzy, though, on how less choice/more restrictions when it comes to art is better for society or threatening to the system. In your reference to pre-'70s 20th century, we have pretty powerful protest music in the '60s, and the advent of rock n' roll in the '50s, but those were already splinterings themselves, from the crooners, country & western, jazz, and blues that already existed. And rock, with its frivolous lyrics, seems an unlikely candidate for galvanizing any kind of resistance other than the fact that adults hated it. Earlier in the century, you've got Shostakovich's problems with the Stalinist government and Stravinsky causing riots, along with Dada and Surrealism, but I don't get the sense that even earlier, in the 19th century, that Mendelssohn, Shumann, Brahms, etc. were all that good at bringing people together (you could make an argument that Wagner brought a LOT of people together—but not quite in the right direction). Even an art form that we think of as almost universally loved, like impressionism, caused many divisions at the time. Are you mostly saying that it's just worse than it could have been because of capitalism? That the music of the '60s had the potential to be even stronger, but after being co-opted by market lost its teeth and splintered too much? And is it that '50s rock itself didn't specifically have the power to cause any kind of resistance, but the coming together of the people around it, forming a community of different races, classes, etc. is the real powerful part? I just don't get the sense (admittedly with my limited knowledge of social history), that there was much harmony to begin with.
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 1:32pm

Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 12:48pm
Very thought-provoking. I'll be thinking on this for a while. I'm still a little fuzzy, though, on how less choice/more restrictions when it comes to art is better for society or threatening to the system.
Indeed, it runs entirely counter to what we think of as beneficial. Which is somewhat the point. To use a parallel argument, environmentalism argues that we have to produce and consume less selfishly, oftentimes just plain less, for the greater benefit.
In your reference to pre-'70s 20th century, we have pretty powerful protest music in the '60s, and the advent of rock n' roll in the '50s, but those were already splinterings themselves, from the crooners, country & western, jazz, and blues that already existed. And rock, with its frivolous lyrics, seems an unlikely candidate for galvanizing any kind of resistance other than the fact that adults hated it. Earlier in the century, you've got Shostakovich's problems with the Stalinist government and Stravinsky causing riots, along with Dada and Surrealism, but I don't get the sense that even earlier, in the 19th century, that Mendelssohn, Shumann, Brahms, etc. were all that good at bringing people together (you could make an argument that Wagner brought a LOT of people together—but not quite in the right direction).
Here's a key distinction—rock was a mass marketed form from the start that had a defined audience, youth. Aesthetically, one can trace rock n roll to previous forms, but in terms of its place within consumer capitalism and its audience, it was unique. And within that was political possibility. Part of that was also due to an abnormally large group of youth (Boomers) who came of age in comfort yet also rebelled against their parents—unique conditions that might make all my hoo-ha about neoliberalism and subgenres irrelevant.
Even an art form that we think of as almost universally loved, like impressionism, caused many divisions at the time. Are you mostly saying that it's just worse than it could have been because of capitalism? That the music of the '60s had the potential to be even stronger, but after being co-opted by market lost its teeth and splintered too much? And is it that '50s rock itself didn't specifically have the power to cause any kind of resistance, but the coming together of the people around it, forming a community of different races, classes, etc. is the real powerful part? I just don't get the sense (admittedly with my limited knowledge of social history), that there was much harmony to begin with.
Yes, I'm arguing for potentials that there were hints of throughout the 60s, tho, yes, maybe the whole thing was doomed from the start. But there was a sincere belief in a youth culture that could be mobilized; we don't even bother to think that such a possibility could exist anymore. My larger argument in all this is partly that the commercial success of rock encouraged all that diversity, to find new markets, which compromised any hope of a unity politically and socially. But it's also that the left didn't fight against this at all. The older left hated rock anyway as primitive and commercial, contrary to high art's dreams. The younger ones, the New Left, embraced the politics of personal liberation, treating society/the group as repressive, and emphasized politics that encouraged what makes us distinct and rejected older group politics like racism and sexism. Which just so happens to slot in well with neoliberalism's worship of the market. Something for everyone and everyone should have something. We can and should blame capitalism; but we should also blame the left for regarding as a virtue something which seeks to divide us. Good results in individual cases, whether we're talking about music or, say, non-CIS rights, but at the greater cost of normalizing the market as the arbiter of our lives.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 20 Sep 2017, 1:58pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 1:32pm
Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 12:48pm
Very thought-provoking. I'll be thinking on this for a while. I'm still a little fuzzy, though, on how less choice/more restrictions when it comes to art is better for society or threatening to the system.
Indeed, it runs entirely counter to what we think of as beneficial. Which is somewhat the point. To use a parallel argument, environmentalism argues that we have to produce and consume less selfishly, oftentimes just plain less, for the greater benefit.
In your reference to pre-'70s 20th century, we have pretty powerful protest music in the '60s, and the advent of rock n' roll in the '50s, but those were already splinterings themselves, from the crooners, country & western, jazz, and blues that already existed. And rock, with its frivolous lyrics, seems an unlikely candidate for galvanizing any kind of resistance other than the fact that adults hated it. Earlier in the century, you've got Shostakovich's problems with the Stalinist government and Stravinsky causing riots, along with Dada and Surrealism, but I don't get the sense that even earlier, in the 19th century, that Mendelssohn, Shumann, Brahms, etc. were all that good at bringing people together (you could make an argument that Wagner brought a LOT of people together—but not quite in the right direction).
Here's a key distinction—rock was a mass marketed form from the start that had a defined audience, youth. Aesthetically, one can trace rock n roll to previous forms, but in terms of its place within consumer capitalism and its audience, it was unique. And within that was political possibility. Part of that was also due to an abnormally large group of youth (Boomers) who came of age in comfort yet also rebelled against their parents—unique conditions that might make all my hoo-ha about neoliberalism and subgenres irrelevant.
Even an art form that we think of as almost universally loved, like impressionism, caused many divisions at the time. Are you mostly saying that it's just worse than it could have been because of capitalism? That the music of the '60s had the potential to be even stronger, but after being co-opted by market lost its teeth and splintered too much? And is it that '50s rock itself didn't specifically have the power to cause any kind of resistance, but the coming together of the people around it, forming a community of different races, classes, etc. is the real powerful part? I just don't get the sense (admittedly with my limited knowledge of social history), that there was much harmony to begin with.
Yes, I'm arguing for potentials that there were hints of throughout the 60s, tho, yes, maybe the whole thing was doomed from the start. But there was a sincere belief in a youth culture that could be mobilized; we don't even bother to think that such a possibility could exist anymore. My larger argument in all this is partly that the commercial success of rock encouraged all that diversity, to find new markets, which compromised any hope of a unity politically and socially. But it's also that the left didn't fight against this at all. The older left hated rock anyway as primitive and commercial, contrary to high art's dreams. The younger ones, the New Left, embraced the politics of personal liberation, treating society/the group as repressive, and emphasized politics that encouraged what makes us distinct and rejected older group politics like racism and sexism. Which just so happens to slot in well with neoliberalism's worship of the market. Something for everyone and everyone should have something. We can and should blame capitalism; but we should also blame the left for regarding as a virtue something which seeks to divide us. Good results in individual cases, whether we're talking about music or, say, non-CIS rights, but at the greater cost of normalizing the market as the arbiter of our lives.
Aha, gotcha. Do you then draw a connection between music currently being less commercialized and millennials' relative embrace of socialism, even though the internet is perhaps the most divisive instrument we've yet seen?
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 2:19pm

Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 1:58pm
Aha, gotcha. Do you then draw a connection between music currently being less commercialized and millennials' relative embrace of socialism, even though the internet is perhaps the most divisive instrument we've yet seen?
It's a separate question, I think, as it doesn't touch the issue of splintering and culture as a means of uniting. But the Internet, file sharing, bandcamp type operations, a fairly affordable means to produce music are all a very good thing for liberating artists and audiences from the old commercial models. We're in a weird place where there are greater concentrations of media corporations, yet more alternatives to those traditional distribution networks. The old way gets worse, but the new way undercuts its significance anyway. But building a mentality that separates art from commerce is a necessary step to getting past capitalism, and altering consciousness is a precursor to any political change. It's about how to apply that "art should be free" to politics and to see politics as a necessary vehicle. And that takes a mass movement.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 7:39pm

Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
3. Suggestions welcome!
Band/project name that you may have, if you wish: Skunkskin.

A billion years ago I made a mixed cd for the missuz and I called it that (the name burped up from my memory gut just now).
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 20 Sep 2017, 7:48pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:39pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
3. Suggestions welcome!
Band/project name that you may have, if you wish: Skunkskin.

A billion years ago I made a mixed cd for the missuz and I called it that (the name burped up from my memory gut just now).
I'm much more interested in what was on this fabled disc.
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 8:01pm

Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:48pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:39pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
3. Suggestions welcome!
Band/project name that you may have, if you wish: Skunkskin.

A billion years ago I made a mixed cd for the missuz and I called it that (the name burped up from my memory gut just now).
I'm much more interested in what was on this fabled disc.
That's lost to the mists of time. Given that it was for the boss, it would have been alternative/indie pop from the 80s and 90s (Beautiful South, Morrissey, Prefab Sprout, etc). The name probably was inspired from the sleeve I designed, likely while fucking around with Photoshop and coming up with some kind of ambient image.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 7406
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Kory » 20 Sep 2017, 8:06pm

Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 8:01pm
Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:48pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:39pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
3. Suggestions welcome!
Band/project name that you may have, if you wish: Skunkskin.

A billion years ago I made a mixed cd for the missuz and I called it that (the name burped up from my memory gut just now).
I'm much more interested in what was on this fabled disc.
That's lost to the mists of time. Given that it was for the boss, it would have been alternative/indie pop from the 80s and 90s (Beautiful South, Morrissey, Prefab Sprout, etc). The name probably was inspired from the sleeve I designed, likely while fucking around with Photoshop and coming up with some kind of ambient image.
You mean she didn't KEEP IT FOREVER?!
Inder:
Absolutely. Here's another collection of words:

Table salt (spoon hinge)
Octopus (Ukraine)
St. Petersburg (arms)
Ginger beer (cauliflower)
Pat Sajak (PSak)
Lamp post (self evident)
Florida Timeshare (ditto)
Heraclitus (EMI)
Developers (Developers Developers)
Boogie With Your Children

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 71177
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Nerdo Crombezia
Contact:

Re: The Shoegazing Thread

Post by Dr. Medulla » 20 Sep 2017, 8:10pm

Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 8:06pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 8:01pm
Kory wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:48pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
20 Sep 2017, 7:39pm
Kory wrote:
19 Sep 2017, 5:43pm
3. Suggestions welcome!
Band/project name that you may have, if you wish: Skunkskin.

A billion years ago I made a mixed cd for the missuz and I called it that (the name burped up from my memory gut just now).
I'm much more interested in what was on this fabled disc.
That's lost to the mists of time. Given that it was for the boss, it would have been alternative/indie pop from the 80s and 90s (Beautiful South, Morrissey, Prefab Sprout, etc). The name probably was inspired from the sleeve I designed, likely while fucking around with Photoshop and coming up with some kind of ambient image.
You mean she didn't KEEP IT FOREVER?!
It might be at the bottom of a box at her office, but we were pretty ruthless when he packed up for the move. She knows I ain't sentimental and wouldn't be hurt if she tossed it, so my guess is that it's in a landfill in Saskatoon.
Walrus birth doesn't make good breakfast conversation!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests