I caught this documentary "Before The Music Dies" on IFC the other day...

[(NO)]

it was pretty disturbing.

trailer. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=JwIiYvLVyZU)

And when I say disturbing, I don't mean "Manufactured pop is killing the soul of music" What I mean is alot of these musicians need to get over themselves.

[(NO)]

Seriously, what an awful documentary.

[(NO)]

I like how they place an emphasis on Bob Dylan.

[(NO)]

If the filmmakers are reading this thread, here's the honest truth.

Toxic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like a Rolling Stone

[jesse_custer]

Aha, I got the fifth post!

Foiled you.

[leonaozaki]

Bob Dylan is still laughing at you.

rob

[Ilash]

If the filmmakers are reading this thread, here's the honest truth.

Toxic>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Like a Rolling Stone

Ah, (NO), if nothing else, you make me laugh...

[mattx110]

I'm glad Doyle got to do that last bit with the pretty strat. He deserves some recognition as his career sorta mistook into popular territory in the 90s and then he receded to his more traditional outlook that can be appreciated by young music-buyers I think.

He's hip and square.

And getting the guy from Rolling Stone to talk is a bit iffy. But the list of musicians that are in there was pretty impressive and if nothing else, it'll be fun to see them.

And if nothing else, Bob Dylan did his damn research. If you think his songs suck and he can't sing or write, the man literally begged borrowed and stole to get records and poetry books and he knew his limitations.

And there are good musicians that sell millions. Nickel Creek. Jamie Cullum musta done a million by now. But good musicians used to have a safety net. If they couldn't make a living doing art-music, they could get signed to a 5 album deal and do pop music. Now they need to sell themselves to the point where a record exec goes "you're not really pretty enough, but we'll take you since you already produced and sold your own album for 3 years and we'll be taking the rights to that album btw."

edit: the theme seemed more to be that music doesn't have to sell to still be alive, and maybe some education could help equalize the art and commerce.

[(NO)]

rockists.

^Believe me I hate using that term, but it is what it is.

[jesse_custer]

Meanwhile, I find the members of this site to be decidedly un-rockist in general.

[(NO)]

Maybe I'm being unfair. I should've said the music forum.

[jesse_custer]

A dull file in a box for decades.

[Ilash]

What the hell is a rockist? Some sort of rock polisher perhaps?

[mattx110]

rockists.

^Believe me I hate using that term, but it is what it is.
Can you clarify this? I feel like I'm missing part of the conversation.

[Adam C]

Ilash, rockism is basically what was expressed in the trailer. It's a point of view (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockist) based around the rock cult of authenticity. No one would label themselves a rockist, but its view points come out in come quarters.

Which is what makes the trailer's use of Bob Dylan's quote so much funnier. Dylan, if nothing, is a shrewd business man who knows exactly how to sell himself.

[leonaozaki]

If hating "Toxic" and Limp Bizkit makes me a rockist, then sign me up.

But I don't think it does.

rob

[Ilash]

See, I'm not entirely convinced that the trailer was based on a particularly rockist point of view. The struggle between art and commerce seems to be th emain thrust of the documentary based on the trailer and that deals with a much wider subject than the one defined by "rockism".

I also think that this board in general doesn't really fit that definition all that well either. Even someone like myself, who does have a "traditional" outlook on music (ie. I prefer music that isn't based primarily on computerized instruments) and my musical tastes might be similar to these so-called rockists but I do accept more musical idioms than what is outlined by the Wikipedia definition. For example, I would much rather listen to assembly line product like the Temptations than a "self-contained" band like Limp Biskit or Creed.

And most members of this board fit the "rockist" criteria even less than I do.

Dylan, incidentally, is an interesting case because he may well know how to sell himself but the focus with him is pretty clearly more on the art side than on the commerce one. At his peak, he was defining trends, not following them - to the point of even alienating a lot of the fans that got him where he was. Hardly typical behavior for someone primarily motivated by money.

Like I said though, the division between commmercialism and art is an interesting topic, specifically within the context of popular music and it is one worth discussing, which seems to very much be the thrust of this doc.

Oh and saying that Toxic is a better song than Like a Rolling Stone is hardly that anti-rockist because, lets face it, Like a Rolling Stone is objectively a far "bigger" song than toxic could ever hope to be. A true anti-rockist would compare Toxic to some obscure Captain Beefheart song, not one of the most recognized, popular songs of all time.

[mattx110]

Nobody in the list of interviewees or contributors or whatever all those musicians where doing there were exclusively rock and all of them have shown respect for non-rock music.

Trust me.

"Damn that Branford Marsalis and his rock music!" :confused:

[(NO)]

Nobody in the list of interviewees or contributors or whatever all those musicians where doing there were exclusively rock and all of them have shown respect for non-rock music.

Trust me.

"Damn that Branford Marsalis and his rock music!" :confused:

The term doesn't only apply to rock music.

"The fundamental tenet of rockism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others."

Most of the artists featured were on that high horse.

Wikipedia has a decent entry on rockism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism)

Douglas Wolk from the Seattle Weekly did a great job of summing it up as well. (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-05-04/music/thinking-about-rockism.php)

[mattx110]

The term doesn't only apply to rock music.

"The fundamental tenet of rockism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others."

Most of the artists featured were on that high horse.

Wikipedia has a decent entry on rockism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockism)

Douglas Wolk from the Seattle Weekly did a great job of summing it up as well. (http://www.seattleweekly.com/2005-05-04/music/thinking-about-rockism.php)
Wolk, and most of that wikipedia article use "rock" or "rock n' roll" as a reference point of comparison in "rockism"

It's a stupid term and most of those artists played different kinds of music, much of which could be described as "pop". For them, it's not a knee-jerk thing but a thought out position. Inventing or using a term for it might marginalize it, but it doesn't mean these people are wrong and posting "rockist" and not much else in a post isn't really taking a side.

It's just naming something. I could say "gullible ill-educated cash-cow" to refer to most of the record-buying public. It has some bad conotations, but I'm not saying anything new or passing judgement in any way. Even though it seems like I am.

[(NO)]

See, I'm not entirely convinced that the trailer was based on a particularly rockist point of view. The struggle between art and commerce seems to be th emain thrust of the documentary based on the trailer and that deals with a much wider subject than the one defined by "rockism".


Need further proof of this doc's rockist tendencies?

Here's another trailer. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY)

"I like REAL music." says the coffee house singer.

I also think that this board in general doesn't really fit that definition all that well either.

Read this thread, then come back to me. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=152831)

I had the misfortune of hearing 7 or 8 songs of his recently. They all sound like plastic music with processed vocals.

ugh.

[mattx110]

Need further proof of this doc's rockist tendencies?

Here's another trailer. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY)

"I like REAL music." says the coffee house singer.



Read this thread, then come back to me. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=152831)



ugh.That was 2006.

We like Justin Timberlake now.

[(NO)]

Wolk, and most of that wikipedia article use "rock" or "rock n' roll" as a reference point of comparison in "rockism"

It's a stupid term and most of those artists played different kinds of music, much of which could be described as "pop". For them, it's not a knee-jerk thing but a thought out position. Inventing or using a term for it might marginalize it, but it doesn't mean these people are wrong and posting "rockist" and not much else in a post isn't really taking a side.

It's just naming something. I could say "gullible ill-educated cash-cow" to refer to most of the record-buying public. It has some bad conotations, but I'm not saying anything new or passing judgement in any way. Even though it seems like I am.

"The fundamental tenet of rockism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others."

Wanted to post that again, just to show it's a very broad term.

Hell, some people like to substitute other genres in the word rockism when necessary. see: Popism, Rapism (lol)

[leonaozaki]

To sum up: (NO) has contributed (a) a defense of Limp Bizkit as the best band of the late 90's and (b) a wide-ranging insult of the entire board because some of us don't like Justin Timberlake or "Toxic."

Good times.

rob

[(NO)]

That was 2006.

We like Justin Timberlake now.

:D :D :D

I think most of the world came around to JT when "Cry Me a River" was released in 2003.

That thread was directed toward the current album.

[mattx110]

"The fundamental tenet of rockism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others."

Wanted to post that again, just to show it's a very broad term.

Hell, some people like to substitute other genres in the word rockism when necessary. see: Popism, Rapism (lol)
Again, use any term. It's meaningless and doesn't say how you feel about anything. Be more explicit. Form an argument, create a discussion. Y'know, have fun and say somethig that can't be taken apart or accepted in under 3 seconds.

I might be able to comment on the actual film asfter the 20th or 26th when they show it again. Thanks for the heads up that it exists btw.

[(NO)]

To sum up: (NO) has contributed (a) a defense of Limp Bizkit as the best band of the late 90's

Uhhhh... yeah.

(b) a wide-ranging insult of the entire board because some of us don't like Justin Timberlake or "Toxic."

Good times.

rob

C'mon, it's "Toxic"!!!!!!!!!

[(NO)]

Again, use any term. It's meaningless and doesn't say how you feel about anything. Be more explicit. Form an argument, create a discussion. Y'know, have fun and say somethig that can't be taken apart or accepted in under 3 seconds.

I'd do this, but it would require me to not be lazy & stuff.

[Valmore]

If hating "Toxic" and Limp Bizkit makes me a rockist, then sign me up.

But I don't think it does.

rob

I'll be sending your "rockist" membership card in the mail. Dues are $5 or a pirated CD-R of a live Bob Dylan show.

However, you are allowed to like Local H's cover of "Toxic" which does, indeed,rock.

[Aubergine~!]

Can we at least agree that Toxic's video > Like a Rolling Stones' video?

The 'Judas' performance not counted, of course.

[howyadoin]

ugh.Do you actually have anything to say?

[Spike-X]

"The fundamental tenet of rockism is that some forms of popular music, and some musical artists, are more authentic than others."


I'm confused. This is meant to be a bad thing?

[mattx110]

I just wanted to add, the woman in the trailer who said "i want real music" and implied that what was written by the 45 year old songwriter wasn't real sucks. Just cause a waify little shiksa is doing the singing, doesn't mean there's anything wrong with the notes or the words.

The image doesn't define the music. and there's a chance that that hot little number has the background to sing well, and interpret skillfully.

And the music isn't less real despite superficiality. There is no music created by a person that is not contrived by definition. The only thing that could "authenticate" music, is to put it into a context and try to understand the impulse that forced it's creation.

the only question that matters in music is "why?"

Thanks to Nietzsche, Kant, Leonard Bernstien, Charles Ives for helping me formulate this theory.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I don't think "Toxic" is better than "Like A Rolling Stone." Neither do I think that "Like A Rolling Stone" is better than "Toxic." They're both great songs with very different purposes, and I use them for very different things.

A literary analysis of "Toxic" would be pretty short (though not illiterately so), and any attempt at dancing to "Like A Rolling Stone" would be laughable -- at least, the kind of dancing which "Toxic" demands. (It occurs to me that "Like A Rolling Stone" actually has a pretty good groove for a bunch of honkies. Still, try to imagine someone under forty dancing, rather than swaying, to it and see how far you get.)

I'll cop to some rockist tendencies, but my main focus is and always has been pop. Even classical, jazz, and experimental music are valuable to me for the pop qualities of surprise, beauty, and drama inherent in them, rather than for the technical values of composition, improvisation and process which surrounds the discourse about them. Popism, maybe.

[Ilash]

Need further proof of this doc's rockist tendencies?

Here's another trailer. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=irk3_p15RJY)

"I like REAL music." says the coffee house singer.

OK, I see where you're coming from now. And yup, I'm not fond of that sentiment either. I understand where she's coming from but I don't agree at all.



Read this thread, then come back to me. (http://forums.comicbookresources.com/showthread.php?t=152831)

This has nothing to do with anything. I mean, let me get this straight, I'm a "rockist" because I cannot stand listening to the dude's music? Not because it's pop or because he didn't write the stuff or anything like that but simply because I genuinely don't think the guy produces good music. Frankly, I think that there's plenty of reasons to hate so much of today's popular music without ever having to bring it down to these silly "rockist" arguments.

[Ilash]

I don't think "Toxic" is better than "Like A Rolling Stone." Neither do I think that "Like A Rolling Stone" is better than "Toxic." They're both great songs with very different purposes, and I use them for very different things.

A literary analysis of "Toxic" would be pretty short (though not illiterately so), and any attempt at dancing to "Like A Rolling Stone" would be laughable -- at least, the kind of dancing which "Toxic" demands. (It occurs to me that "Like A Rolling Stone" actually has a pretty good groove for a bunch of honkies. Still, try to imagine someone under forty dancing, rather than swaying, to it and see how far you get.)

I'll cop to some rockist tendencies, but my main focus is and always has been pop. Even classical, jazz, and experimental music are valuable to me for the pop qualities of surprise, beauty, and drama inherent in them, rather than for the technical values of composition, improvisation and process which surrounds the discourse about them. Popism, maybe.

Please, you're about the least "rockist" person here. Just look at that first paragraph, which I think you're wrong about of course, incidentally. Toxic has its moments (mainly within its rhythm as you point out) but between her awful singing and the fact that it's produced to within an inch of its life, I can't in any way consider it to be throwaway pop's equivalent to Like A Rolling Stone.

And hey, if popism exists then count me in because I'm right with you there.

[Jonathan Bogart]

Toxic has its moments (mainly within its rhythm as you point out) but between her awful singing and the fact that it's produced to within an inch of its life, I can't in any way consider it to be throwaway pop's equivalent to Like A Rolling Stone.
Awful singing? In comparison with a Bob Dylan song? I thought the end of that complaint was one of the points of Bob Dylan: all kinds of voices have their own character and usefulness within pop. It may not be to your taste, but her breathy, almost unvoiced coos on the song fit its theme of decadent, cartoon-dangerous sexuality like a glove. The song sounds like Roxy Music's second album given a glossy, cybernetic, exotic soft-porn makeover -- inherently trashy, but still fascinating. I'll take Britney's limited but effective (when used properly) range any day over, say, Aguilera's melisma attacks. (Though "Ain't No Other Man" is equally a great song, for equally different reasons.)

And I never said it was pop's equivalent to "Like A Rolling Stone." (Pop's only equivalent to "Like A Rolling Stone" is "Like A Rolling Stone," because it's Dylan's, and 1965's, greatest pop moment.) That's the whole point of saying they have entirely different uses. Popular music is no longer structured in such a limited fashion that a single song can amass the cultural weight that "Like A Rolling Stone" accrued to itself, and the oversaturated colors and smash cuts of "Toxic" are their own reward, for those who aren't prejudiced against particular sounds. If there is a 60s' pop equivalent for "Toxic," I'd slot it halfway between the Marianne Faithfull of "As Tears Go By" and the Nancy Sinatra of "Some Velvet Morning," two other cases where atmosphere and production turn the limitations in the range and tone of the singer into assets.

Anyway, I call myself rockist because I still know more about rock & roll, classic rock, and the rockist canon than I do about the rest of music, though I'm working on catching up.

[mattx110]

Anyway, I call myself rockist because I still know more about rock & roll, classic rock, and the rockist canon than I do about the rest of music, though I'm working on catching up.
So... music genre favoritism is basically ignorance and curable by learning and listening?

cool.

[jesse_custer]

Regarding the voices of Dylan and Spears, Bogart is right to point that they work toward different goals despite their mutual lack of technical efficiency. At the same time, Dylan's vocal was both more distinct in 1965 and now than Britney's vocal.

However, there's another reason why I believe "Like a Rolling Stone" is better (and more important): It works in far more listening contexts than Spears' song, which is limited to modern pop. Dylan's vocal crosses several genre barriers. Granted, Dylan's song has been around longer. At the same time, Dylan's song crossed genre barriers when it first came out, whereas Spears' single remains dormant in one context. If her song does cross any genre barriers, they are weaker barriers than those that Dylan's song crossed.

At least that's what I'm hearing anyway.

[mattx110]

Regarding the voices of Dylan and Spears, Bogart is right to point that they work toward different goals despite their mutual lack of technical efficiency. At the same time, Dylan's vocal was both more distinct in 1965 and now than Britney's vocal.

However, there's another reason why I believe "Like a Rolling Stone" is better (and more important): It works in far more listening contexts than Spears' song, which is limited to modern pop. Dylan's vocal crosses several genre barriers. Granted, Dylan's song has been around longer. At the same time, Dylan's song crossed genre barriers when it first came out, whereas Spears' single remains dormant in one context. If her song does cross any genre barriers, they are weaker barriers than those that Dylan's song crossed.

At least that's what I'm hearing anyway.
Plus, Al Kooper only played on one of them.

And maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I find it easier to dance to "Stone" than "Toxic" but I kinda like them both.

[howyadoin]

This has nothing to do with anything. I mean, let me get this straight, I'm a "rockist" because I cannot stand listening to the dude's music?Forget it; he's a troll. Look at pretty much every thread he's ever started and you'll see what I mean.

Which means, of course, that any day now he'll start whining about how nobody takes him seriously.

[Ilash]

First, yes, of course Dylan is a far, far better singer (at his best anyway) than Britney Spears could ever hope to be. I do admit that her singing - and frankly, I use the term lightly - fits Toxic quite well, as it fits any song that is highly sexual in nature. Of course, that's about the only fit for her otherwise extraordinarily irritating singing - whereas Dylan's singing can convey any number of emotions, sometimes at the same time (see Don't Think Twice It's Alright).

As for the songs themselves, yes, they both have their place but - and I'm not asking this rhetorically - is it really fair to equate a slightly interesting and ultimately fairly successful dance song to a song with the amount of depth that Like a Rolling Stone displays? Is ambitious art with all of its intellectual and emotional depths really no more worthwhile than throwaway entertainment? And lastly, how on earth did you get me defending Bob Dylan from Britney FREAKIN' Spears?

And JB, regardless of where most of your music-listening background is, you're clearly not a rockist because you are willing to accept and view different styles of music according to their own terms.

[Ilash]

Forget it; he's a troll. Look at pretty much every thread he's ever started and you'll see what I mean.

Which means, of course, that any day now he'll start whining about how nobody takes him seriously.

Well, to be fair to him, if he is a troll then at least he's a fairly entertaining one... and one that has managed to provide some pretty good discussion on the board lately.

[howyadoin]

I'm confused. This is meant to be a bad thing?It's wrong to have taste, Spike. Throw away those Miles Davis CDs and buy some little-girl music instead.

[howyadoin]

Well, to be fair to him, if he is a troll then at least he's a fairly entertaining one... and one that has managed to provide some pretty good discussion on the board lately.Yeah, this thread and the Limp Bizkit one are stunning in their depth and insight.

[Spike-X]

It's wrong to have taste, Spike. Throw away those Miles Davis CDs and buy some little-girl music instead.
Yeah, I guess I should trade in my Ryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen CDs for some Nickleback and Limp Bizkit while I'm at it.

After all, if all music is created inherently equal, it really shouldn't matter what I listen to, right?

[Ilash]

Yeah, this thread and the Limp Bizkit one are stunning in their depth and insight.

Well, you're right about the Limp Biskit thread (which was still kinda fun) but this thread has inadvertently offered up some decent discussion, I think.

[howyadoin]

Yeah, I guess I should trade in my Ryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen CDs for some Nickleback and Limp Bizkit while I'm at it.

After all, if all music is created inherently equal, it really shouldn't matter what I listen to, right?That's just your opinion, man!

Well, you're right about the Limp Biskit thread (which was still kinda fun) but this thread has inadvertently offered up some decent discussion, I think.I think the key word in that sentence is pretty obvious.

[Jonathan Bogart]

First, yes, of course Dylan is a far, far better singer (at his best anyway) than Britney Spears could ever hope to be.
I'm never sure what people mean by "better," which is why I don't like to rank things on such absolute scales. My listening life would be poorer without each, is all I know.

As for the songs themselves, yes, they both have their place but - and I'm not asking this rhetorically - is it really fair to equate a slightly interesting and ultimately fairly successful dance song to a song with the amount of depth that Like a Rolling Stone displays? Is ambitious art with all of its intellectual and emotional depths really no more worthwhile than throwaway entertainment? And lastly, how on earth did you get me defending Bob Dylan from Britney FREAKIN' Spears?
Yes, no, and without much effort.

Less snarkily, and in reverse order: Finding worth in Britney Spears' music in no way lessens Dylan's achievements (whatever (NO) might think) -- no defense is even necessary, as Dylan clearly starts out with the critical high ground anyway. It's difficult for me to see any clear demarcation between "ambitious art" and "throwaway entertainment," particularly given the fact that "Toxic" has had only five years to "LaRS"'s forty-three to make its mark, but the fact that we still remember it five years later says something. And I didn't equate them, I compared them, and any two things on this green earth can be compared profitably, if the person doing the comparison approaches both with intelligence and sympathy.

The two songs (for the last time) have different uses. I've made no claim as to the relative importance of those uses, which I think is what rankles. But I'm cautious about calling anything disposable. The records on Harry Smith's Anthology of American Folk Music were all dismissed as obsolete junk until he rescued them from oblivion, and now they're considered foundational building blocks of American music. All kinds of production-oriented pop, from Phil Spector to disco to 80s synth-pop, have been denigrated (and frequently continue to be: hi, howy and Spike) as valueless and meaningless until subsequent listeners, musicians, and writers reevaluated them and built new canons. In the Internet Age, nothing is disposed of anymore.

[mattx110]

Yeah, I guess I should trade in my Ryan Adams and Bruce Springsteen CDs for some Nickleback and Limp Bizkit while I'm at it.

After all, if all music is created inherently equal, it really shouldn't matter what I listen to, right?
It depends on your definition of "inherent" actually.
If you follow that "inherent" means conotation without human assignment, and thus empirically provable, then yes. All music is equal.

If "inherent" allows for historical context and follows the content implied by the pertinent traditions, then no. Not all music is inherently equal.

Since we're human and the most basic "human" compenent of mental capacity is to invent/imagine, we don't need to bother with the empirical definition and turn right to the more subjective, but infinitely more useful definition of devising value in music. As such, we can no longer divorce the music from it's creator the way some like to do. But we get to have an actual discussion. Which is good. Because two nihilists talking about the inherent qualities of music would go "so there are these waves... sound waves" "huh... I guess we're done, unless you wanna check out my pythagoran charts on fundamentals and harmonics" "no thanks..." ...

Am I pretentious yet? lol

there, that brought me down a peg.

[Jonathan Bogart]

After all, if all music is created inherently equal, it really shouldn't matter what I listen to, right?
Well, no, it doesn't matter. Not to anyone but yourself, anyway. What a weird notion, that there's some music that you "should" listen to and some music you "shouldn't." If you enjoy it, fuck anyone else's opinion, including mine.

[howyadoin]

All kinds of production-oriented pop, from Phil Spector to disco to 80s synth-pop, have been denigrated (and frequently continue to be: hi, howy and Spike) as valueless and meaningless...
I'm a huge Spector fan. Ditto Brian Wilson, Matthew Sweet, the Cars, Cheap Trick, Sloan, the Killers, etc. etc.

I just think that corporate chick-pop is generally worthless, specifically because the "artists" in question contribute so very little to the actual music, which puts them practically in Milli Vanilli territory. (As a further corollary, pretty much anybody who lip-syncs is worthless, too.) I'm sure good music can come out of such a situation; I just think it's exceedingly rare that it actually happens. And of course, it does get under my skin when talentless people get together with lowest-common-denominator song doctors and trendy producers-of-the-moment and make millions selling ringtones while people who sweat and bleed for their music can't get a leg up because the music industry won't give them a chance.

Also, if "subsequent listeners, musicians, and writers reevaluate them and build new canons", then those people are adding something to the mix that wasn't there in the original product.

But if the music floats your boat, that's your business. I just find it funny when some people go through page and pages of rationalization to justify the fact that a song from some generic pop tart gives them a woodie.




And speaking of Britney, her music seems almost antiseptically sexless to me.

[Spike-X]

speaking of Britney, her music seems almost antiseptically sexless to me.

That's probably because Justin Timberlake hadn't brought sexy back yet.

[howyadoin]

That's probably because Justin Timberlake hadn't brought sexy back yet.Who's got it now? Did he set it free when he brought it back?

[Valmore]

Who's got it now? Did he set it free when he brought it back?

Sorry dude. I bought sexy off of eBay for $27.95.

I'll bring it back some day, I promise.

[Jonathan Bogart]

And speaking of Britney, her music seems almost antiseptically sexless to me.
For the record, I agree. My interest isn't in her appearance -- I don't watch music videos, and I wouldn't be able to pick Britney out of a blonde tart lineup. "Her" music isn't sexy, it's about the uses to which an abstract conceptualization of her sexuality is put. Someone like Bif Naked is a thousand times more sexy, and makes music a thousand times more sexy, than Britney's.

Shakira, on the other hand...

[(NO)]

Forget it; he's a troll. Look at pretty much every thread he's ever started and you'll see what I mean.

Which means, of course, that any day now he'll start whining about how nobody takes him seriously.

I show some honesty in my threads, and that means I'm a troll? Gimme a break.

Yeah, this thread and the Limp Bizkit one are stunning in their depth and insight.

I see the topic of rockist is hitting a little too close to home.

Case in point:
"It's wrong to have taste, Spike. Throw away those Miles Davis CDs and buy some little-girl music instead"

[jesse_custer]

Miles Davis: greatest rock star ever?

[Jonathan Bogart]

Miles Davis: greatest rock star ever?
I'd call it a toss-up between him and Mickey Dolenz.

[howyadoin]

I show some honesty in my threads, and that means I'm a troll? Gimme a break.Speaking of honesty, it is interesting how your redneck-doofus act comes and goes.

[(NO)]

Speaking of honesty, it is interesting how your redneck-doofus act comes and goes.

I'm a puerto rican kid from chicago, not a redneck doofus.

[(NO)]

sheesh dude, my dad's an ex latin king.

[blackdragon6]

i saw the documentary and it basically didn't say anything that people didn't already know. the doc probably will only appeal to the people thats already in the know. everybody else probably won't care because of indifference. or won't care cause they actually like the top 40 manufactured artists.

[beetheb]

Well, no, it doesn't matter. Not to anyone but yourself, anyway. What a weird notion, that there's some music that you "should" listen to and some music you "shouldn't." If you enjoy it, fuck anyone else's opinion, including mine.I just had to drop in quickly and say Amen to this comment.

I don't think music snobs are telling you you should or shouldn't listen to anything, they're just reserving the right to take the piss out of you if what you listen to happens to be on their "should not" list.

I don't have the "should listen to" or "should not listen to" lists, I've only got what I like and what I don't.

[Jonathan Bogart]

I don't think music snobs are telling you you should or shouldn't listen to anything, they're just reserving the right to take the piss out of you if what you listen to happens to be on their "should not" list.
Well, sure. Half the fun of being a music nerd is pointing and laughing at people with lesser taste.

[beetheb]

Well, sure. Half the fun of being a music nerd is pointing and laughing at people with lesser taste.Heh. Well, first you have to define what "lesser" actually is, but sure, I get where it's comin from. Sorta my point.

[Spike-X]

I don't think music snobs are telling you you should or shouldn't listen to anything...

Sure.

Unless it's Nickleback.

Half the fun of being a music nerd is pointing and laughing at people with lesser taste.

Only half?

[Adam C]

I'm confused. This is meant to be a bad thing?

At the risk of seen as siding with (NO)'s ridiculous trolling...from my own perspective probably. Based on my what I've learned about music and my own perceptions of certain arguments I've seen plenty of cases of 'authenticity' going in completely ludicrous directions to make me rather suspicious of it, and those where I wonder if it means anything regarding the quality of the music. In the former it's things like people derisively calling the Sex Pistols a 'boy band' because they were partly assembled by a skeevy business man (even though it was at the pestering of Steve Jones and Johnny Rotten really was spewing bile, and having a laugh at the same time), often while lauding the Clash, who were put together by a skeevy business man in a much more caculated fashion. (And lied about their backgrounds early on to satisfy...britpunk notions of authenticity.) The difference is that they gelled as a band and fired him. (Or Mick Jones did.) Then there is the blues mythology erected by white fans that serves as one of the origin points for this notion of authenticity, which quite often has little to no basis in fact.

In the latter, I can see why the notion of authenticity means something in the cases of Bruce Springsteen, Johnny Cash, Ted Leo, or Joe Strummer. But what, if anything does it mean in terms of judging the Ramones, David Bowie (especially his glam years), Tom Waits since 1983, and a good portion of Bob Dylan's work? It doesn't seem to be that being true produces any better music. (Otherwise Anti-Flag wouldn't produce derivative garbage.)

[leonaozaki]

I don't need authenticity in music. I need personality. So far I haven't been able to discern any in "Toxic" or any of Britney's music generally.

rob