reposted from Kenny's journal - Tim Kinsella being awesome
"Beirut. The Patriot Act. Palestine. Africa. Wal-Mart. Clear Channel. Peak oil. Global devastation. The backward talk of those in power that dominates and suffocates our cultural discourse. Overpopulation. The dawning of neo-feudalist Theocracy in America. It's a busy, interesting place we've got here. Lots of information aimed at us. The hidden
( Read more... )
Nowhere in the article does Tim Kinsella suggest that Hawthorne Heights is responsible for corrupt government - I'm assuming your riffing off of Ryan's bit of sarcasm, which is exploiting a fallacy by supplying "government" where "politics" is originally targeted. Ryan's attacking a leap that he created - not the article.
The thrust of the essay, in my opinion, begins by identifying the bleakness of political situations musicians have *the least* control over - politics within Government - and concludes by starting a discourse on the field they have the *most* control over - the music they create, which ultimately informs culture and politics on different scales. The music they create relects and is reflected by culture, and culture in turn informs politics on different scales.
I don't understand why this wouldn't be relavant; it's written about musicians' politics, and directed at musicians. It doesn't even address consumers, except in a cultural discourse relationship dependent upon musicians. While describing government conditions, it does not seem to be aimed at them anymore than it is aimed at dark energy, Wal Mart, or the Patriot act.
Also, why is something scene related - or even elitist - irrelevant by default? What is relevant? What acid test should we use?
Help me understand, because clearly, I'm missing something.
-Matt
Reply
music and business have gone hand in hand for a very long time. even though, as a musician, I find it extremely distasteful to think about sharing my bed with a black suited businessman, it is one of those things that may someday happen.
I think the real problem, and Mr kinsella realizes this as well, is that alot of the bands in the magazine he is talking about ARE just imitating eachother and it IS getting really tired.
but think about it...music over history, and art in general throughout history, moves in waves like that. a few brilliant people get together and come up with an amazing and wholly original idea, or they take old forms and REFORM them to suit their own expression. After a while, the stragglers come trying to make a buck off others' ideas and then the "scene" or "artistic community" or whatever you want to call it, becomes saturated with lookalikes. these people aren't evil, and at the individual artists level they may even have their heart in the right place.
When this happens, it goes two ways. people with money view this new style with hungry eyes, thinking they can easily capitalize on something that has generated it's OWN momentum.
also, people who aspire to create art, but are, in their own right too un-talented to come up with ideas of their own, begin to plagerize unapologetically in an attempt to fufil whatever part of themselves that desires artistic recognition.
HOWEVER, we now live in a world where the free exchange of information is almost unregulated. it has never been so easy for a musician to get his music into the hands of people who will listen to it. that being said, it is no wonder that we have an excess of bands that sound the same. they have been given a forum that (for the most part) shitty music was never afforded before. in the past, someone had to invest a great deal of money in a musician before they could ever hope to have an audience larger than what they could physically play to at a live appearence.
but tim, you have to realize, that there are truly brilliant people in every generation...and one has to have faith in the power of the intellectual mind to recognize this genius. In one hundred years no one will be discussing underoath in textbooks (sorry guys, you are nice guys but come on...)
because there is no artistic value there. they have brought nothing to the form.
I suppose my point is, there is nothing to fear from these bands who simply exist to repackage old ideas in fancy and expensive jewel cases. Their days are numbered. The era of major labels is coming to an end. We as musicians should discuss what we wish to replace them with. We need to determine what the internet truly means in it's relationship to us as artists, and figure out how to "save the soul" of music.
at any rate, I am rambling. I just read this essay this morning, and I got kind of upset. I realize the essay was meant to be taken sarcastically, but it strikes a chord with me. I suppose it is the next generations lot to be looked down upon by those who came before them, it just depresses me to think that someone like Tim Kinsella has lost his faith in punk rock's ability to revitalize and to make itself relevant once again.
oh well! it was interesting reading all of your guys' responses to this, xo!
Reply
"We must integrate our politics into our lifestyle, acknowledge that every bridge, hook, melody and sales strategy has political demensions."
Tim K seemingly understands the concept of voting with money. However, it doesn't appear that he grasps (at least not fully) the intrinsic integration of politics into lifestyle -- if so, why would he say "We must...", when it's inherent that we always are.
What is relevant? The answer, in short, is relative: Who or what are we attempting to be relevant to? Lets analyze:
Is it relevant to political discourse and cultural influences? Yes, it does -- as you mentioned -- appear to acknowledge the relationship of politics reflecting cultural ideals, and cultural ideals, in turn, reflecting political realities.
But is the purpose of the essay to simply entertain, to create a climate of cultural introspection, or both? It was my assumption that this essay's intention was the latter. But I abhor the effort for its lack of scalability.
I don't mean to imply that cultural introspection through satire is meaningless or irrelevant. On the contrary, I feel its vital to democracy. But Tim K's effort is specifically geared toward those within a specific subculture, or demographic cross-section -- my parents, for example, wouldn't identify with any of its content. This is why I called it elitist, or scene.
Tim juxtaposed serious issues with real political ramifications and a need for bands to break up. Why? Where is the connection? Wal-Mart and Palestine? Sure, that's politically relevant. But bands within a very narrow sub-genre needing to break up? That's a matter of taste.
Artist collectives may habitually steal from and imitate each other, but do so despite the actual political climate of their time. Artists will always reflect the content of their culture, and in that content, the politics of said culture. But this is a relationship that doesn't change as long as artists have the freedom to express as much. Only in their inability to express themselves would the politics of a culture surface. For example: Elizabethan playwrights were barred from writing about the church. Such cases would assuredly serve as valid acid tests.
But is Tim K's concern with bands imitating each other a valid acid test for cultural introspection? Hardly. At least not when artists have no real restrictions on what they create. Rather, his essay is a rant about his own personal tastes. If he doesn't appreciate imitated or unoriginal art, then he shouldn't delve too deep into any one genre, as imitation is ubiquitously rampant across all genres of all art forms.
It seemed to me that he used relevant issues (eg: Palestine, etc...) to piggyback in his own personal opinion about contemporary music. Like sand in the bulls eyes -- a filibuster for the indy-masses -- he disoriented his audience and rambled incessantly, as if entertaining them would distract them further from noticing the connection his content lacked.
Maybe I should have said "half-relevant".
Reply
Leave a comment