(no subject)
So, every music fan goes through this with their friends. Your friends like a band that you Just Don't Get.
For me, that band is Rage Against the Machine. I appreciate the righteous anger that comes from Zack de la Rocha's pen and the inventive tones that come from Tom Morello's guitar. But there's something that prevents me from joining the chorus, and that is this: I always thought it was more than slightly hypocritical to preach about bringing down the corporate machine from the podium of a major record label.
One could be charitable and say, well sure they needed the oomph of a major to get their message across, nobody would pay attention to them (or their message) without the copious amounts of handling and packaging that bands that have signed with a major go through. You could also ask that I be heartened that a message contrary to the political status quo is getting out at all, regardless of the conduit.
These are valid arguments, but the thing that seems to counter them is that an artist like Ani DiFranco has the same progressive politics, and she's levelled much of the same venom at the powers that be (listen to a lyric like "May their souls rest easy now that lynching is frowned upon/and we've moved on to the electric chair").The difference is that Ani has run her own boutique label, Righteous Babe, since she was nineteen years old, and I for one respect her a hell of a lot more for it.
Running a successful business, let alone a record label is absolutely an exceptional achivement for anyone, especially when there's so much that's being pushed upon us by major music outlets, so I'm not glibly saying "Well, if x person can do it, then why can't y'? And I for damn sure am not attempting to set up a false "Indie v. Major" dichotomy, because I do firmly believe that heartfelt, left-of-the-dial music and commerce can co-exist successfully when people are willing to demonstrate that there's a demand for it. Also, there are so many other ways people are distributing and obtaining their music that the concept of indie-v-major will soon be a moot point.
What I am, however, asking, is this: Given that there have been artists who have had success going the independent route, (whether it's Ani on her own label or Ian Mackaye founding Dischord) and have put their money where their mouth was where the trajectory of their career was concerned, why is so much usted given to a band who appeared to be on much shakier philosophical ground than artists who embodied the same counter-cultural (however you define the term) ideals in a far more concrete manner? Maybe there's something I'm missing, and I'm more than willing to learn, so if anyone can chime in, please do. But for right now, it's late, I have to be at work early, and I'm tired, so I'll just sign of with my traditional
Love and Cheers,
Kai
For me, that band is Rage Against the Machine. I appreciate the righteous anger that comes from Zack de la Rocha's pen and the inventive tones that come from Tom Morello's guitar. But there's something that prevents me from joining the chorus, and that is this: I always thought it was more than slightly hypocritical to preach about bringing down the corporate machine from the podium of a major record label.
One could be charitable and say, well sure they needed the oomph of a major to get their message across, nobody would pay attention to them (or their message) without the copious amounts of handling and packaging that bands that have signed with a major go through. You could also ask that I be heartened that a message contrary to the political status quo is getting out at all, regardless of the conduit.
These are valid arguments, but the thing that seems to counter them is that an artist like Ani DiFranco has the same progressive politics, and she's levelled much of the same venom at the powers that be (listen to a lyric like "May their souls rest easy now that lynching is frowned upon/and we've moved on to the electric chair").The difference is that Ani has run her own boutique label, Righteous Babe, since she was nineteen years old, and I for one respect her a hell of a lot more for it.
Running a successful business, let alone a record label is absolutely an exceptional achivement for anyone, especially when there's so much that's being pushed upon us by major music outlets, so I'm not glibly saying "Well, if x person can do it, then why can't y'? And I for damn sure am not attempting to set up a false "Indie v. Major" dichotomy, because I do firmly believe that heartfelt, left-of-the-dial music and commerce can co-exist successfully when people are willing to demonstrate that there's a demand for it. Also, there are so many other ways people are distributing and obtaining their music that the concept of indie-v-major will soon be a moot point.
What I am, however, asking, is this: Given that there have been artists who have had success going the independent route, (whether it's Ani on her own label or Ian Mackaye founding Dischord) and have put their money where their mouth was where the trajectory of their career was concerned, why is so much usted given to a band who appeared to be on much shakier philosophical ground than artists who embodied the same counter-cultural (however you define the term) ideals in a far more concrete manner? Maybe there's something I'm missing, and I'm more than willing to learn, so if anyone can chime in, please do. But for right now, it's late, I have to be at work early, and I'm tired, so I'll just sign of with my traditional
Love and Cheers,
Kai