Rocking for the sake of rocking
I was talking with Amy about ska the other day. She said she didn't like it as a genre, which (after discussion with other people) seems to be a popular opinion. It still strikes me as weird, because I like and dislike bands, not genres. And yes, I know that there's a lot of crap in ska, but there's a lot of crap in every genre, so that does not help the case against ska. At any rate, I'm aware that my tastes and standards are also quite a bit different from most people's, and especially when it comes to music. Curious, I asked her why she didn't like ska, and one of the things she listed as a bad thing about ska was that it seemed like they were rocking for the sake of rocking. The band I had played (The Mighty Mighty Bosstones) has a singer with a... gravelly voice on a good day, so she can't really be faulted for not knowing what the hell he was singing about. But that stuck in my craw for a while... rocking for the sake of rocking is a bad thing?
I surveyed the people in my department at work. I asked, "Is rocking an acceptable end in itself? Is it OK to rock simply for the sake of rocking?" I was met with unanimous assent, but it was a small comfort - they're none of 'em philosophers. But I kept thinking about it... to what end could rocking be used as a means? To clarify, I interpret "[x]ing for the sake of [x]ing" as "[x]ing simply for the pleasure derived directly from [x]ing," or "just [x]ing for the hell of it." I don't see the problem with that on its face, y'know, so long as nobody gets hurt. But the more I thought about it, the more disconcerted I grew that I could not think of anything that could be accomplished by rocking which could not be accomplished better by some alternative means; which would mean that, on some level, all rocking is for its own sake.
So I asked Chris about it (rocking for the sake of rocking), and he said, "You're seriously confused as to how someone could dislike something that's devoid of content?" I chewed on that for a while, and we eventually started talking about WoW or EVE or something. But I was thinking about it later, too late by far to justify bringing it back up, and I realized (for lack of a better term) that there is a distinction between the degree to which something rocks and its content - I mean, fuckin' duh. I suppose "content" can be interpreted in various ways, but because he seemed to be saying that rocking minus content equals mediocre, I assume that he meant that there was musical content, but not lyrical content. But instrumental music lacks any lyrics whatsoever, and therefore cannot possibly have lyrical content... but that can certainly rock, and why not? It certainly doesn't have to, so doing so seems entirely masturbatory... but I still don't see that as a bad thing. Hmm.
Thoughts?
TANGENT: I want to make it clear that I do not like The Mighty Mighty Bosstones for the same reasons or in the same way as I like, say, Tool. Tool's got layers and subtlety and rich metaphors and deep meanings and they rock - they're an all-around awesome band. Bosstones, on the other hand, are just about raw attitude, and I dig that every now and then. I basically see ska as the punk to swing's rock, but ska and swing seem a titch closer to me. Of course, there's simply no accounting for taste sometimes, people like what they like and don't like what they don't like and sometimes that's just all she fuckin' wrote. However, I'm still super-curious as to how the hell that all works. I want to see the causality, dammit! With my EYES!
I surveyed the people in my department at work. I asked, "Is rocking an acceptable end in itself? Is it OK to rock simply for the sake of rocking?" I was met with unanimous assent, but it was a small comfort - they're none of 'em philosophers. But I kept thinking about it... to what end could rocking be used as a means? To clarify, I interpret "[x]ing for the sake of [x]ing" as "[x]ing simply for the pleasure derived directly from [x]ing," or "just [x]ing for the hell of it." I don't see the problem with that on its face, y'know, so long as nobody gets hurt. But the more I thought about it, the more disconcerted I grew that I could not think of anything that could be accomplished by rocking which could not be accomplished better by some alternative means; which would mean that, on some level, all rocking is for its own sake.
So I asked Chris about it (rocking for the sake of rocking), and he said, "You're seriously confused as to how someone could dislike something that's devoid of content?" I chewed on that for a while, and we eventually started talking about WoW or EVE or something. But I was thinking about it later, too late by far to justify bringing it back up, and I realized (for lack of a better term) that there is a distinction between the degree to which something rocks and its content - I mean, fuckin' duh. I suppose "content" can be interpreted in various ways, but because he seemed to be saying that rocking minus content equals mediocre, I assume that he meant that there was musical content, but not lyrical content. But instrumental music lacks any lyrics whatsoever, and therefore cannot possibly have lyrical content... but that can certainly rock, and why not? It certainly doesn't have to, so doing so seems entirely masturbatory... but I still don't see that as a bad thing. Hmm.
Thoughts?
TANGENT: I want to make it clear that I do not like The Mighty Mighty Bosstones for the same reasons or in the same way as I like, say, Tool. Tool's got layers and subtlety and rich metaphors and deep meanings and they rock - they're an all-around awesome band. Bosstones, on the other hand, are just about raw attitude, and I dig that every now and then. I basically see ska as the punk to swing's rock, but ska and swing seem a titch closer to me. Of course, there's simply no accounting for taste sometimes, people like what they like and don't like what they don't like and sometimes that's just all she fuckin' wrote. However, I'm still super-curious as to how the hell that all works. I want to see the causality, dammit! With my EYES!