Leave a comment

anonymous June 26 2008, 09:01:35 UTC
I've always thought it hogwash that rock was inherently 'oppositional'. It's barely even working class these days. If anything, it goes no further than the 'generation gap' (itself overcome as we now have our own - and our parents - youth resold back to us again and and again). The birth of rock was a perfect supplement to a new imperial power - aggressive (and indulgent) group masculinity as the highest form of 'freedom'. Movies, games, clothes and gadgets all use use rock's marketing tropes now - selling ideas of freedom, community, independence and carefree youth (handy for getting 18 - 35 year olds to spend way beyond their means).

Lest we forget the high prominence of military-trained and patriotic rockers (and soul singers) - from Elvis to Jimi, or Jim Morrison and Strummer coming from priveliged military backgrounds. Joe Carducci's rightist pooh-pooing of 'Rolling Stone' leftist fantasies is on the money here. The over-fetishisation of punk and Public Enemy has also give too much kudos to rock and rap as 'oppositional' - they hardly ever were. There have been 'politicised' blips, but only when it was selling well (just as it did on TV and film, eg. under Nixon or Thatcher).

Reply

tom_may June 27 2008, 08:37:12 UTC
All very true; it has not seriously functioned as an opposition in many specific cases.

For anyone to hold to the position that it is intrinsically oppositional, 'rebellious' &c. ought to been seen as inherently laughable. But instead this is the default mindset and language of the current UK media.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up