Rock and roll honesty

[Enforcer]

Rock and rollers ask, "Who cares what we think?" A refreshing departure, yes? I think so.

[Brian Olewnick]

But...but...but...they're rock stars. If they don't know more than me, who does?

[Scott Dolan]

Weenies

[Dr Dave]

Originally Posted by Brian Olewnick

But...but...but...they're rock stars. If they don't know more than me, who does?

Well, there you are, Ollie. Nobody knows more than you do!

fx cue: "Lonely At The Top"

[Gary Sisco]

The only politics rock and roll ever had or should have:

Kick out the jams, motherfuckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Chris D]

Pete Townshend had the right idea when he punched Abbie Hoffman.

[Gary Sisco]

That's an aspect of the "antiwar 60s" that's often forgotten, Chris. Abbie was hectoring an audience whose eyes were glazing over about the war. Townshend brained him and got on with the show. It's also evident when you hear Country Joe having to harangue people to get them to sing along with him.

Revisionists always refer to a "we," as if the movement included anyone who was alive and a certain age. It didn't.

Rock and roll is something that exists and should exist on its own terms. It's music, not politics. It was intended to shake asses, not brains.

[Dan G]

There always seems to be a backlash against famous people who espouse their political/social views, and I don't understand why. They are as credible as anyone else, except maybe the PhDs who study in those areas. Being a celebrity doesn't automatically make them stupid.

And the reality is, if these people have opinions they should state them, because lots of people do listen. Being a teeenager in the late 70s, I learned a lot about the world from listening to and reading about the Clash, Gang of Four, etc; I'm sure other generations also have their icons who shape society.

If some kid is going to learn about global warming, it sure as hell isn't going to be from a scientific journal or a newspaper. Maybe television...but not the news. But if someone in their favorite band says something, they hear it. Musicians, for better or worse, are influential and given the opportunity to say something that can change things, they should use that forum as best they can. Sitting back and saying 'we're just rock stars, people shouldn't care about our opinion' might make sense - why should we care - but is also a denial of the way things are.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Rock and roll is something that exists and should exist on its own terms. It's music, not politics. It was intended to shake asses, not brains.

I disagree. Rock music can't just exist on its own terms, it is part of a culture and developed in, around, and as backlash against, that culture. Music is art, and art needs to make people think to be successful. if it didn't, we'd al just be a bunch of conformist zombies (which is, of course, what our leaders want, giving us more reason to need the status quo to be challenged by artists).

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Dang

Music is art, and art needs to make people think to be successful. if it didn't, we'd al just be a bunch of conformist zombies

Yeah, but isn't being strictly anti-establishment just for the sake of it conformist also? And that's what you often get, especially from the rock and roll crowd.

[Gary Sisco]

Dan -- Well, we'll disagree, then. Everything exists within a culture, bullshit included. Rock and roll's downfall was its beginning to think of itself as "art." Would you like to hear what a Sandinista commandante's bodyguard told me about the Clash record? He said the title was a nice gesture but the record sucked. Musicians may have politics, being humans. Music does not. If young people need to be politically educated by rock musicians, first, better look for a new generation. Rock is grandfather music. Second, don't expect them to become politically educated.

Music is sound. That's all. Nothing human exists outside a culture so saying something exists within a culture is like saying fish live in water. So what?

Fucking hell, I played rock and roll myself for a living into my 30s. *I* had politics. The music did not. And we would and did mock anyone who demanded such of us. One time I received a load of shit at a gig from some feminists for having played a song "I Met Your Wife At The Dogshow," an anthem penned by a long-dead friend. After the hectoring and before I could respond, a biker friend I was standing with at the bar, dressed in his full outlaw MC regalia, said, "Fuck your causes. Leave the musicians alone with your fucking causes."

He was rock and roll.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Yeah, but isn't being strictly anti-establishment just for the sake of it conformist also? And that's what you often get, especially from the rock and roll crowd.

Yes, that is conformist, and those people hopefully get recognized as posers pretty quickly.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Dan G

Being a celebrity doesn't automatically make them stupid.

To an extent it does. Being rich and famous distorts their perspective because they lose touch with the reality that the people they're "espousing" to live in.

[Gary Sisco]

I think the whole celeb/politics thing is absurd. Do I really give a fuck what Bono has to say -- or Springsteen, either, for that matter -- about this or that issue? Not in the slightest. Did I when I was a kid? Even less.

My musical tribe was the counterculture's counterculture band (Holy Modal Rounder/Clamtones clan) and I basically finished growing up, most of my adolescence, in the countercultural wing of the New Left, the populist tendency. We never conceived of the music's being political. It was entertainment, meant for fun.

Sure, we played benefits for this or that and so forth. That's about all the connection there ever was. And we did that enough that I began to dread the month of May. For some reason, May was the benefit season. And in those days, bands didn't get paid for playing benefits. Often, each band would also have to haul its own equipment and sound system and so forth, as well. There'd be so many benefit gigs that May became a poverty month even by poverty standards.

The main element of radicality was cultural, not political. It was based in mischief, outrage, and behaviors driven by a shit load of alcohol and drugs of all make and model, taken in outrageous amounts, even by the day's standards. We were real bad boys, by most standards, and it wasn't a marketing scheme. It was just daily life. Rock and roll began as a music for punks and juvenile delinquents, which is what we were, basically. Some of that crowd would have been considered rednecks, even, by most counterculture/New Left people of the time -- or since, because they've all become much more culturally conservative, since, and much more dour as well. Very little political content and almost none in the music. Steve Weber was watched for a brief spell by the FBI. Why? He'd been seen talking with one of the Weather faction at a gig. Likely neither one even remembers what they talked about.

People often forget that The Beatles' "Revolution" was directed at the New Left and was actually a song that took a stand against institutional change, which is what revolution is, if there's revolution. ("You say that it's the institutions; well, you know, we'd all love to change your heads.") The beats had a kind of similar, culturally radical-politically not thing happening. At one point in one of his novels (I can't remember which, haven't read them since a kid) Kerouac has his characters yelling ecstatically on a mountain top "We'll make a revolution against society!" That's not radical politics. It is much more redolent of a romanticism of the sort that one could find buttressing what later became radical-conservatism, German style, and invites all sorts of reactionary implications. And, indeed, Kerouac was a political reactionary in his time, who loathed the counterculture that adopted him, never mind the New Left or its later splinters and remnants.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by Gary

My musical tribe was the counterculture's counterculture band

Fer christs sake............

[Chris D]

And Dylan's throwing in with that shabby lot, more than the electricity, was what most pissed off the Sing Out! crew.

"I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now...."

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

To an extent it does. Being rich and famous distorts their perspective because they lose touch with the reality that the people they're "espousing" to live in.

In any population - ethnic, professional, religious... - there will be some people who are very knowledgeable about many things. Saying the celebrities are stupid because of their lifestyle is no more valid than me saying that Americans, because their education system, government, and media have for years brainwashed them to believe that their way of life is the only right way, are deluded and out of touch with the reality that the rest of the world lives in.

Both statements equally valid, and equally idiotic.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Dan G

There always seems to be a backlash against famous people who espouse their political/social views, and I don't understand why. They are as credible as anyone else, except maybe the PhDs who study in those areas. Being a celebrity doesn't automatically make them stupid.

My impression is that celebrities' political insights are, for better or worse, at the same level as those of the general population.

Guy

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

I think the whole celeb/politics thing is absurd.

I agree. But why is it any more absurd than what any newspaper columnist might have to say?

Do I really give a fuck what Bono has to say -- or Springsteen, either, for that matter -- about this or that issue? Not in the slightest.

Neither do I.

But the reality is that millions of people do listen to celebs, many more than read/listen/participate in any 'legitimate' political discourse.

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by guy

My impression is that celebrities' political insights are, for better or worse, at the same level as those of the general population.

Guy

Agreed.

Some know quite a bit, some know jack shit.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Rock and roll is something that exists and should exist on its own terms. It's music, not politics. It was intended to shake asses, not brains.

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again.

[jesus marion joseph]

"Fans are being encouraged to share cars or use public transport to attend, all lightbulbs will be energy-efficient and the food will be sourced locally where possible.

All the signs from the New York show and the stage in Tokyo will be recycled or composted.

"Where we can't use biodegradable materials, there'll be comprehensive recycling programmes," said Robb, who says the Live Earth gigs will set new green standards for the events industry.

After the shows, the organisers, with the help of accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers and an army of consultants, will calculate the volume of carbon emissions created and will then "offset" the difference. "


Personally, I have no problem with musicians who want to promote a political view with their music, or musicians who decide they want to use their time and/or money to "make a difference". But how many people at Live Earth are going there in hopes of creating a real change, and how many are going to get wasted and hear some great tunes? And maybe yack on their neighbor's shoes.

By the metric of the show's organizer, me and my high school buddies were way ahead of our time when we rented buses to go to Grateful Dead shows. The beer got "recycled", the pot got smoked, and the acid and mushrooms were entirely dispensed. And all while partaking in a giant carpool.

I think I hear the Antarctic ice shelf re-freezing.....

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Dan G

In any population - ethnic, professional, religious... - there will be some people who are very knowledgeable about many things. Saying the celebrities are stupid because of their lifestyle is no more valid than me saying that Americans, because their education system, government, and media have for years brainwashed them to believe that their way of life is the only right way, are deluded and out of touch with the reality that the rest of the world lives in.

Both statements equally valid, and equally idiotic.

Neither statement is idiotic.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by Dan G

I agree. But why is it any more absurd than what any newspaper columnist might have to say?

Newspaper columnists are much less likely to spend their lives being told how fabulous they are, surround themselves with people who take care of them and generally get adored for how talented and/or pretty they are.

The average celebrity can't relate particularly well to the average voter. The unpardonable arrogance is annoying also, although it's not by any means a trait limited to celebrities.

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

The average celebrity can't relate particularly well to the average voter.

Given how poorly the average voter relates to any number of substantive issues, I don't see how this bears at all on the worthiness of celebrity comments on social issues.

[Gary Sisco]

I'm not talking about celeb lifestyles. I'm talking about celebs. Because some jerk-off on tv is "against global warming" or whatever, my only response is, So what? So's everyone down at the gas station.

With rock stars, you get a concert, a bag of cash that disappears in "administrative costs," a blip on the jumpy screen, a huge mess to clean up, enormous amounts of energy used, all told. That's all.

I see Snoop Dogg's on the case, too, hey.

Next cause.



Shit's been going on for decades.

[Gary Sisco]

I wish I could put a sound clip on here of Bronwyn mocking this shit with that accent that seems like all young women of a certain age have, no matter where in the US they live. It's enough to make me piss myself when she gets going on it. She has all of the various nuances down pat.

"[Al "Gas Bag" Gore] invited the crowd at the city's Aussie stadium, to take Live Earth's seven-point pledge...."

Well, at least it's five fewer steps....

[Gary Sisco]

This is a good one:

Arctic Monkeys shiver at Live Earth 'hypocrisy'

Jul 4 10:57 PM US/Eastern


Rock group Arctic Monkeys have become the latest music industry stars to question whether the performers taking part in Live Earth on Saturday are suitable climate change activists.
"It's a bit patronising for us 21 year olds to try to start to change the world," said Arctic Monkeys drummer Matt Helders, explaining why the group is not on the bill at any of Al Gore's charity concerts.

"Especially when we're using enough power for 10 houses just for (stage) lighting. It'd be a bit hypocritical," he told AFP in an interview before a concert in Paris.

Bass player Nick O'Malley chimes in: "And we're always jetting off on aeroplanes!"

Large parts of the band's hometown of Sheffield were flooded at the end of last month after a deluge of mid-summer rain that some blamed on global warming. Two people were killed.

But the band wonder why anyone would be interested in the opinion of rock stars on a complex scientific issue like climate change.

"Someone asked us to give a quote about what was happening in Sheffield and it's like 'who cares what we think about what's happening'?" added Helders.

"There's more important people who can have an opinion. Why does it make us have an opinion because we're in a band?"

The group, whose first record was the fastest-selling debut album in British history, will clock up thousands of air miles -- in normal airliners not private jets, they say -- during their tour to Asia and Australia in the next few months.

They are not the only stars to take a cynical view of Live Earth, which aims to raise awareness about global warming but which will require many longhaul flights and thousands of car journeys to and from the music venues.


Many of the biggest acts have questionable environmental credentials -- the car-loving rapper Snoop Dogg appeared in a Chrysler commercial last year -- and there are doubts about the ability of pop stars to galvanise the world into action.

Bob Geldof, the architect of Live Aid and Live 8, the two biggest awareness-raising concerts in history, had a public spat with Al Gore about the need for the event.

"Why is he (Gore) actually organising them?" Geldof said in an interview with a Dutch newspaper in May, adding that everyone was already aware of global warming and the event needed firm commitments from politicians and polluters.

Roger Daltrey, singer from 1970s British rock band The Who, told British newspaper The Sun in May that "the last thing the planet needs is a rock concert."

And the singer from 80s pop sensations The Pet Shop Boys, Neil Tennant, attacked the arrogance of pop stars who put themselves forward as role-models.

"I've always been against the idea of rock stars lecturing people as if they know something the rest of us don't," he was reported as saying by British music magazine NME.

Live Earth takes place Saturday in seven cities -- Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Hamburg, London, Johannesburg and New York -- and organisers hope for a television audience of two billion.

An eighth show in Rio de Janeiro was cancelled by police due to security concerns.

"Live Earth is going to bring together a massive audience around the world to take action against the climate crisis," says Live Earth organiser Yusef Robb.

"Some may say that rock stars tend to be conspicuous consumers, but if we can get those people to turn the corner then we're happy to do so."

Planners have put an enormous effort into minimising the environmental impact of the event in an effort to pre-empt sniping from critics about hypocrisy and the pollution caused by the concerts.

Fans are being encouraged to share cars or use public transport to attend, all lightbulbs will be energy-efficient and the food will be sourced locally where possible.

All the signs from the New York show and the stage in Tokyo will be recycled or composted.

"Where we can't use biodegradable materials, there'll be comprehensive recycling programmes," said Robb, who says the Live Earth gigs will set new green standards for the events industry.

After the shows, the organisers, with the help of accountancy group PricewaterhouseCoopers and an army of consultants, will calculate the volume of carbon emissions created and will then "offset" the difference.

Carbon offsetting means investing in carbon-reducing initiatives such as planting trees or making donations to renewable energy projects.

Robb highlights the good work being done by many artists.

British ska-rock group The Police and US funk-punk band Red Hot Chili Peppers are examples of "people who practice what they preach."

Meanwhile, nu-metal headliners Linkin Park have their own climate change charity and Hawaiian artist Jack Johnson tours in a biodiesel-fuelled bus.


Copyright AFP 2005,

[Vince Kargatis]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

This is a good one:

Arctic Monkeys shiver at Live Earth 'hypocrisy'

Gary, that's just the article Larry linked to in the first post.

[Gary Sisco]

Well, see, there you go. Marijuana abuse, again, a-and a practice that adds to global warming on top.

Does this mean we have to stop smoking herbs now or that we just have to grow more than we smoke?