Hey Eats, good to see ya around.

Ya know, besides me being something of a technophobe with a dislike of this constant deluge of gadgets(another expression of capitalist overproduction) there's something else which bugs me about all of this. I think we listen to too much music, that we cheapen and trivialize the experience through overindulgence.

Used to be I had something playing constantly, classical or jazz on public radio, choice rock(including punk) and blues on recorded media. Then about four years ago I decided my life didn't need a sound track. I'm much more selective nowadays, mebbe one cd a night. It's no longer a drone behind my thoughts, wallpaper, I pay closer attention. I do hear more live music though, birdsong.

Despite the recent proliferation of indie recordings and labels I think recorded music has stiffled music creativity, particularly on the local level. I believe a lot of musicians are driven into established channels because they want to be heard, other give up. Though as I only play the radio I am hardly an expert. But mebbe it's not the technology, mebbe it's just capitalism.


Many people are addicted to popular music and have to have it playing at all times. Why, I wonder? Adolescents do that, of course - when I was 14 I listened continually to pop music, although in Detroit that was local artists as much as anything. Of course all of those local Detroit musicians went national - Smokey Robinson, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, The Temptations, Bob Seeger, Mitch Ryder, Ted Nugent, Glenn Frey, and many others.

But after age 14, the interest in pop music seemed silly and the omnipresent radio sound track became annoying. Live ethnic music, classical music and church music became more interesting. It still surprises me to see adults following that adolescent pattern of having a continual soundtrack to their lives going.

"Soundtrack" is the right term, I think, because the adolescent indulgence in popular music for me was associated with making up stories about a future life, the adventures and romances to come, with me in the leading role of this fantasized and idealized life. Maybe for adults who are stuck in this, they are living a fantasy life in their minds that requires a soundtrack.

I agree that music is cheapened and trivialized by this.

Another interesting thing -

Not listening to pop music, like not watching TV, has come to be seen as "better" and if you say that you don't listen to pop music or watch TV, people will express admiration or else accuse you of trying to be "holier than thou." That then leads to someone saying "not all TV is bad" or "not all pop music is bad" or "it is just mindless entertainment and was intended to be no more than that, and you are making too big a deal out of it" even though I made no "deal" out of it at all.

That is an odd thing, and modern - people are awash in popular culture, feel sort of guilty about that, but then aggressively defend it.

I remember when I first realized that tv commercials were using pop music to target specific consumers. 70s music for a particular pickup truck, 80s pop for fashion or a cellphone service.

hehe at the risk of the entire community voting to tombstone me...listen here to the winning entry at this year's Eurovision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8JRtGMBUz0

It's horribly pop-y BUT fascinating in its corporate treatment of ethnic and cultural diversity.

The guy is Norwegian, but born in Minsk. The dancers a Scandinavian folk troup, but performing 'Russian' dance moves, the song is in English, the blonde backup ladies could have come from NYC or Oklahoma.

I can't explain it, but it's almost as if it's 'Americanized.'
Not at all what I expected.

Interesting to see traditions turned into trashy pop spectacles, mocking and trivializing the traditions in the process.

That is to music and dance what the Obama campaign is to politics.

Now people can call me a "purist" and a "debbie downer" and accuse me of trying to impose "what I want" on others and of expressing "poutrage" and of "making too much out of it" and of trying to be "self-righteous" and of "over-thinking things" and of "having an agenda" and of being a "whiner" and so forth - see the parallels?

"Get with the program, Mike - people are having fun and you are being too critical and it is what it is and we are all one and you are just a fringe purist and a loser."

I think what this all turns on is this question - are we done yet with thinking and acting like overgrown adolescents and are we ready to start taking life seriously?

Thousands of brilliant traditional musicians from Eastern Europe are working menial jobs and struggling since the breakup, and money pours into the pockets of some clever people who put together a simplistic and mindless exploitation of traditional Russian musical and dance idioms.

But I know - it is just all "fun," right? and I am taking things too seriously.

That cloying smile on the face of that young man takes on a different meaning when you see it as the smug and satisfied smirk of the destroyer of cultures and peoples. But, hey shake your booty, sway and emote, wave your arms, express adulation and lose yourself in it - whatever you do, don't think.

An Obama rally, a fundy church service, a pop music concert - how do we tell them apart? The audiences in each case seem to be responding exactly the same way, have the same glazed look in their eyes, are experiencing the same emotionalized mindless fugue state.

Many people are addicted to popular music and have to have it playing at all times. Why, I wonder? Adolescents do that, of course - when I was 14 I listened continually to pop music, although in Detroit that was local artists as much as anything. Of course all of those local Detroit musicians went national - Smokey Robinson, Aretha Franklin, Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, The Supremes, The Temptations, Bob Seeger, Mitch Ryder, Ted Nugent, Glenn Frey, and many others.

But after age 14, the interest in pop music seemed silly and the omnipresent radio sound track became annoying. Live ethnic music, classical music and church music became more interesting. It still surprises me to see adults following that adolescent pattern of having a continual soundtrack to their lives going.

"Soundtrack" is the right term, I think, because the adolescent indulgence in popular music for me was associated with making up stories about a future life, the adventures and romances to come, with me in the leading role of this fantasized and idealized life. Maybe for adults who are stuck in this, they are living a fantasy life in their minds that requires a soundtrack.

I agree that music is cheapened and trivialized by this.


It's weird. Lately I've been going back to music. Youtube is one of my favorite links and the worse things get, the happier I am to discover old songs I'd never heard before. Lately it's been a lot of Frankie Lymon. His voice and story mesmerize me. It was because of Frankie that I found that Zola Taylor song I sent you. What a cheeky teenager he was. There's something wrong with a system that exploits kids for a fast buck and tries to squeeze their talent into little boxes.

You're not taking things too seriously. This world is totally messed up when people are forced to stop developing their talents just to provide someone else's capital.

OK I am lost in the early 60's now. God I loved this guy back in the day. Hope you listen to at least a few of these Tinoire (I got kind of carried away).

http://socialistindependent.org/images/sam.jpg

Somebody Ease My Troublin' Mind - (two tunes, the second one is not to be missed)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOjkYSXqcgU&feature=related

The Great Pretender, with harp and flute no less -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyIo1M-Sp1g&feature=related

Unchained Melody -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXpKPy2_DZA&feature=related

Since I Met You Baby -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVRLsS5wYqU&feature=related

Nobody Knows the Trouble I've Seen -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQzlzH5wymc&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAr-7HqAAMc&feature=related

Sam Cooke live - Bring It On Home To Me

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM6_ZDvB70o&feature=related

Ain't that Good News -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0aLkdi3GQo&feature=related

Check this out - the Everly Brothers and Sam Cooke (!) on Lucille Ball (!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhV2Oiv2Rq8&feature=related

Early recording of Sam Cooke singing Nearer My God to Thee -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jzgiw2KmxtQ&feature=related

http://socialistindependent.org/images/sam2.jpg

Interesting to see traditions turned into trashy pop spectacles, mocking and trivializing the traditions in the process.

That is to music and dance what the Obama campaign is to politics.

Now people can call me a "purist" and a "debbie downer" and accuse me of trying to impose "what I want" on others and of expressing "poutrage" and of "making too much out of it" and of trying to be "self-righteous" and of "over-thinking things" and of "having an agenda" and of being a "whiner" and so forth - see the parallels?

"Get with the program, Mike - people are having fun and you are being too critical and it is what it is and we are all one and you are just a fringe purist and a loser."

I think what this all turns on is this question - are we done yet with thinking and acting like overgrown adolescents and are we ready to start taking life seriously?

Thousands of brilliant traditional musicians from Eastern Europe are working menial jobs and struggling since the breakup, and money pours into the pockets of some clever people who put together a simplistic and mindless exploitation of traditional Russian musical and dance idioms.

But I know - it is just all "fun," right? and I am taking things too seriously.

That cloying smile on the face of that young man takes on a different meaning when you see it as the smug and satisfied smirk of the destroyer of cultures and peoples. But, hey shake your booty, sway and emote, wave your arms, express adulation and lose yourself in it - whatever you do, don't think.

An Obama rally, a fundy church service, a pop music concert - how do we tell them apart? The audiences in each case seem to be responding exactly the same way, have the same glazed look in their eyes, are experiencing the same emotionalized mindless fugue state.


Whiner.

Thanks for taking the time to watch it and comment, Mike. I'm not crazy. You said exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't put it into words.

http://intoyoureyes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/alexanderrybak.jpg

Been holding off on saying this because it may or may even matter, but theres a line between social criticism and, well, bitching about things no matter how warranted said bitching may be

I get that all kinds of cultural institutions and conventions and mores are fucked up but..we're kind of getting off-course dwelling on that stuff

Again, not saying theres anything wrong with it per se, but we can't kid ourselves that its getting us anywhere, either

PS and I'm not setting myself up as arbiter of that line or anything..I recognize that establishing a working class culture is one of the most vital tasks workers are charged with today. Maybe I am offbase to some respect because I haven't lived through what others have, but that can't account for everything I'm seeing here

PPS I am also not big on all of the moral suasion and "betrayal" talk. Again, theres a line of demarcation somewhere and I can't peg it exactly but there's an important difference between "righteous" and "self-righteous"

Think we're tip-toeing that line too much too often, something we can't afford

Interesting to see traditions turned into trashy pop spectacles, mocking and trivializing the traditions in the process.

That is to music and dance what the Obama campaign is to politics.

Now people can call me a "purist" and a "debbie downer" and accuse me of trying to impose "what I want" on others and of expressing "poutrage" and of "making too much out of it" and of trying to be "self-righteous" and of "over-thinking things" and of "having an agenda" and of being a "whiner" and so forth - see the parallels?

"Get with the program, Mike - people are having fun and you are being too critical and it is what it is and we are all one and you are just a fringe purist and a loser."

I think what this all turns on is this question - are we done yet with thinking and acting like overgrown adolescents and are we ready to start taking life seriously?

Thousands of brilliant traditional musicians from Eastern Europe are working menial jobs and struggling since the breakup, and money pours into the pockets of some clever people who put together a simplistic and mindless exploitation of traditional Russian musical and dance idioms.

But I know - it is just all "fun," right? and I am taking things too seriously.

That cloying smile on the face of that young man takes on a different meaning when you see it as the smug and satisfied smirk of the destroyer of cultures and peoples. But, hey shake your booty, sway and emote, wave your arms, express adulation and lose yourself in it - whatever you do, don't think.

An Obama rally, a fundy church service, a pop music concert - how do we tell them apart? The audiences in each case seem to be responding exactly the same way, have the same glazed look in their eyes, are experiencing the same emotionalized mindless fugue state.


Whiner.

Thanks for taking the time to watch it and comment, Mike. I'm not crazy. You said exactly what I was thinking, I just couldn't put it into words.

http://intoyoureyes.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/alexanderrybak.jpg


Terrifying...

OK I did say that I was getting carried away...

This is interesting - two part harmony, and I think both voices are Sam...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmmV8COP6Rk&feature=related

I recognize that establishing a working class culture is one of the most vital tasks workers are charged with today.


That's sobering.

So how do we establish that culture when we have no control over how the information about ourselves is gathered or spread? TV, movies, books, magazines - at one time I wouldn't have included the internet, but now I do. The purpose of that info dissemination has been to essentially obliterate the working class concept of itself.

How do we get control of our own message?

I can affirm all day long my neighbor's right and desire to, say, love pop music. But what happens when what we're linking arms in solidarity over isn't even real? (Not sure that makes sense.)

I get that all kinds of cultural institutions and conventions and mores are fucked up but..we're kind of getting off-course dwelling on that stuff



Not sure kid. I don't think art is apolitical, and I think the assault on culture is an important and overlooked component to the exploitation of people.

What I am talking about is the destruction of culture by capitalism.

Thousands of years of cultural traditions that have defined people, given meaning to their lives, all crushed out in our lifetime. Are we to claim that this is not significant? Are we to ignore that there is a profit motive in that ongoing destruction, that is coincides with the domination of every corner of the world by capitalism, that a people without cultural moorings is a people easier to exploit?

I think the very idea that culture is insignificant or trivial - mere entertainment to be purchased according to individual personal taste - is symptomatic of the problem.

What other things are we to not dwell on, and whom would that serve?

I think the very idea that culture is insignificant or trivial - mere entertainment to be purchased according to individual personal taste - is symptomatic of the problem.

What other things are we to not dwell on, and whom would that serve?

Clever prevarication isn't going to absolve you here Mike.

If there are no constraints on the direction our discussions take as a general rule (not say everything has to be locked in deadly serious) then we could just go off on a tangent and talk about any inane thing that comes to mind. Shit, thats what like 50% of internet discussion *IS* right now, so theres no shortage.

But, we're about something and this stuff is a step in the wrong direction IMO

So don't act as though I'm trying to put up prohibitions and strictures..some of this stuff is silly and little more than venting/bitching. Don't like the state of pop music or television or whatever else? Sorry but BFD.

How are those cultural issues different than trying to right any (and every) other wrong in the world? Its not, and its all handwringing and its all go-nowhere BS.

Heres a little musical allusion for you: Time to RISE ABOVE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aXLBWSO1gew/SfEYZ-gSuOI/AAAAAAAAAcg/FYdsuzubwMw/s400/Black%2BFlag%2B-%2BDamaged.jpg

That's sobering.

So how do we establish that culture when we have no control over how the information about ourselves is gathered or spread? TV, movies, books, magazines - at one time I wouldn't have included the internet, but now I do. The purpose of that info dissemination has been to essentially obliterate the working class concept of itself.

How do we get control of our own message?

I can affirm all day long my neighbor's right and desire to, say, love pop music. But what happens when what we're linking arms in solidarity over isn't even real? (Not sure that makes sense.)


Do you realize how hard the ruling class works at this, continually, relentlessly? To hijack the message? To control the discussion? How difficult and unlikely it is that they would succeed at that?

The ruling class has to buy their clout, force it on us, because their message is so weak and the people are so resistant to it. They can't let up for a minute - it is a house of cards - yet they have us convinced that it would be impossible to overcome, that it is merely the natural and inevitable course of events we are seeing.

What is the main effect of the mass media? It is not to stupefy the people, nor to rally any conservative base. It is to convince us that we are over-matched and that it is hopeless, to convince us that the ruling class controls the masses and that we may as well give up.

Much more ignorant and powerless people have successfully overthrown tyranny. The general public today is no worse than at any time in the past - no more lazy, no more ignorant, or any of the rest of the crap that liberals love to deride the people about. However, what is different is this - there may have never been a more fucked up class of intellectuals. That would be us.

We have this all backward - we look to the people: "when will they ever wake up, and why are they shopping at WalMart and what are we to do?" Shouldn't the people be looking to us? If they did, there would be nothing to see, because we are AWOL, absent from the battle. The working class has been decapitated.

We lack clarity and courage. That is the obstacle, not "TV, magazines, books..."

The internet is a good example of this. There is almost no effective left wing presence on the internet. The right wing is using it very effectively, however. The right wing does not have an advantage on the internet, as they do in the MSM, because of their war chest. The internet cannot be bought, yet. But they are winning there, too. So obviously there is something other than money that is affecting this.

I have talked about the need for a new left wing network on the internet. I have talked about running internet boards as coops, democratically. I have talked about creating groups for mutual defense and support, so we can do this political work and not starve. But there has been no interest in that. Instead, people go with the most problematic corporate model, and hope to do some individualized thing.

There is a desperate need - the immigrant rights groups, the incipient democratic labor movement, to name two examples - for tech assistance. And liberal ranks are full of "IT" people. But they are all busy trying to figure out how to make money for themselves, and how to be the keepers of arcane technocratic secrets of the trade - and lying their asses off about it.

Let's just look at DU for example. A couple of clever people invest the capital and have an "idea" - (God, that idiocy of thinking that Bill Gates is being rewarded for having an "idea" drives me nuts, and it applies here as well. He is being rewarded for exploiting other people's ideas and for lying and for taking advantage of people.)

And what capital did it take to set up the "plant?" Hardly any. Then they get thousands of people to work for them - all of the value at DU is created by the labor of the members, not by the capitalists, the admins. The members are not paid, but the owners make a nice living for themselves. The worker bees are terrorized into doing the bidding of management and obey their every whim, and tricked into continuing to labor for free - they profusely thank the owners for the opportunity to work for free! And then we have a gaggle of people there who defend that system, who will brook no criticism of it, and yet who fancy themselves to be leftists, and the great mas of people go along with that. Any idea how insane that all is, and how easy it is to see, and how easily it could be changed?

I think the very idea that culture is insignificant or trivial - mere entertainment to be purchased according to individual personal taste - is symptomatic of the problem.

What other things are we to not dwell on, and whom would that serve?

Clever prevarication isn't going to absolve you here Mike.

If there are no constraints on the direction our discussions take as a general rule (not say everything has to be locked in deadly serious) then we could just go off on a tangent and talk about any inane thing that comes to mind. Shit, thats what like 50% of internet discussion *IS* right now, so theres no shortage.

But, we're about something and this stuff is a step in the wrong direction IMO

So don't act as though I'm trying to put up prohibitions and strictures..some of this stuff is silly and little more than venting/bitching. Don't like the state of pop music or television or whatever else? Sorry but BFD.

How are those cultural issues different than trying to right any (and every) other wrong in the world? Its not, and its all handwringing and its all go-nowhere BS.

Heres a little musical allusion for you: Time to RISE ABOVE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aXLBWSO1gew/SfEYZ-gSuOI/AAAAAAAAAcg/FYdsuzubwMw/s400/Black%2BFlag%2B-%2BDamaged.jpg


WTF?

Defend your positions here.

Where did I lie?

Why is it incumbent upon me to defend my thesis that there is an important political component to these cultural issues, but you are not required to defend your position that it nothing but bitching and no BFD?

You say you are not calling for "prohibitions and strictures" yet then say this is not a direction we should pursue, because it is, in your opinion, a "tangent" and an "inane thing" and "handwringing" and "silly and little more than venting/bitching."

You sound exactly like an apologist for the Democratic party over at DU with these comments, which is why I asked what other things you think we should not dwell on. The Obama zealots have a different set of things that they think a "tangent" and an "inane thing" and "handwringing" and "silly and little more than venting/bitching," but the motivation is the same - to dismiss and ridicule opinions.

If you have some case to make here, that we should not look at the effects on culture of capitalism, then make it.

It's rare that modern "pop" music (defined as what's on the Billboard Top 40, not just anything that is modern) can serve to be anything but mindless sound with a danceable beat, or mindless escapism. Occasionally, I have listened to the radio in the few months while driving because my old CD player that was a gift finally broke and I can't afford a new one. The only songs I like are the songs that I have some sort of nostalgic connection to. Like songs from when I was rebelling against my ultra conservative parents and listening to "the rock" of the 80s and early 90s.

Those songs weren't good - they just served and important purpose for me at that time.

In almost any genre, you can find music that is too sophisticated for radio play, and that music can be extremely good and mentally and emotionally stimulating.

Modern ambient and downtempo artists create some truly fascinating and complicated music (Phutureprimitive, Blutech) but you'll never hear any of those I am referring to on the radio. The israeli duo Infected Mushroom has some of the most creative and fascinating tech/industrial music out there, too "strange" and noncomforist to be heard on mainstreat radio or played in "clubs."

Folk artists continue to deliver compelling, captivating music that is not escapist (Leonard Cohen, Bonnie "Prince" Billy, Mary Gautheir). Jazz artists are blending sounds and cultures and exciting ways (Esperanza Spalding). Classical composers are breaking rules and reconstructing symphonies and concertos (John Corigliano). Metal musicians are pushing for levels of technical complexity that are stunning (Meshuggah from Sweden, Nechrophagist from Norway).

It seems like in almost any genre, once you look pass the surface of what the "maintream" presents to you as "the music" - you can find really noteworthy artists doing extremely interesting stuff. All the artists I mentioned are some of my personal favorites. And my music tastes are all over the spectrum. But little of anything good I have ever found was a "hit" on the charts.

There are a handful of exceptions.

I think the very idea that culture is insignificant or trivial - mere entertainment to be purchased according to individual personal taste - is symptomatic of the problem.

What other things are we to not dwell on, and whom would that serve?

Clever prevarication isn't going to absolve you here Mike.

If there are no constraints on the direction our discussions take as a general rule (not say everything has to be locked in deadly serious) then we could just go off on a tangent and talk about any inane thing that comes to mind. Shit, thats what like 50% of internet discussion *IS* right now, so theres no shortage.

But, we're about something and this stuff is a step in the wrong direction IMO

So don't act as though I'm trying to put up prohibitions and strictures..some of this stuff is silly and little more than venting/bitching. Don't like the state of pop music or television or whatever else? Sorry but BFD.

How are those cultural issues different than trying to right any (and every) other wrong in the world? Its not, and its all handwringing and its all go-nowhere BS.

Heres a little musical allusion for you: Time to RISE ABOVE

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aXLBWSO1gew/SfEYZ-gSuOI/AAAAAAAAAcg/FYdsuzubwMw/s400/Black%2BFlag%2B-%2BDamaged.jpg


WTF?

Defend your positions here.

Where did I lie?

Why is it incumbent upon me to defend my thesis that there is an important political component to these cultural issues, but you are not required to defend your position that it nothing but bitching and no BFD?

You say you are not calling for "prohibitions and strictures" yet then say this is not a direction we should pursue, because it is, in your opinion, a "tangent" and an "inane thing" and "handwringing" and "silly and little more than venting/bitching."

You sound exactly like an apologist for the Democratic party over at DU with these comments, which is why I asked what other things you think we should not dwell on. The Obama zealots have a different set of things that they think a "tangent" and an "inane thing" and "handwringing" and "silly and little more than venting/bitching," but the motivation is the same - to dismiss and ridicule opinions.

If you have some case to make here, that we should not look at the effects on culture of capitalism, then make it.


Truth is I could care less if its posted as a topic for conversation or not, but its getting to the point where its encouraging others too much. There's important stuff to talk about and ruminate on, and contrary to your contention, the "dialogues" like this one on pop music are hardly "looking at the effects of culture on capitalism"

Seriously, have as many personal crusades as you like Mike. But they don't all spill over into the political no matter how you knots you twist in trying. And that means theres a limit to how often you can puke them out on the page..printed, digital, whatever

Couldn't you just as easily say that Poverty helps the ruling class to keep people under their thumb? No shit..

It comes down to asking whether the conversation is going in a constructive direction. You're trying to tack on class accoutrements but all anyone has to do is read your posts in this thread to see that is not really the angle you are going on about.

Again, its not a big deal in a vacuum, but it seems as though you're causing others to lose focus. Gotta draw the line there.

Truth is I could care less if its posted as a topic for conversation or not, but its getting to the point where its encouraging others too much. There's important stuff to talk about and ruminate on, and contrary to your contention, the "dialogues" like this one on pop music are hardly "looking at the effects of culture on capitalism"

Seriously, have as many personal crusades as you like Mike. But they don't all spill over into the political no matter how you knots you twist in trying. And that means theres a limit to how often you can puke them out on the page..printed, digital, whatever

Couldn't you just as easily say that Poverty helps the ruling class to keep people under their thumb? No shit..

It comes down to asking whether the conversation is going in a constructive direction. You're trying to tack on class accoutrements but all anyone has to do is read your posts in this thread to see that is not really the angle you are going on about.

Again, its not a big deal in a vacuum, but it seems as though you're causing others to lose focus. Gotta draw the line there.


I guess I don't know what you are saying.

What is my angle that I am going on about?

Been holding off on saying this because it may or may even matter, but theres a line between social criticism and, well, bitching about things no matter how warranted said bitching may be

I get that all kinds of cultural institutions and conventions and mores are fucked up but..we're kind of getting off-course dwelling on that stuff

Again, not saying theres anything wrong with it per se, but we can't kid ourselves that its getting us anywhere, either

PS and I'm not setting myself up as arbiter of that line or anything..I recognize that establishing a working class culture is one of the most vital tasks workers are charged with today. Maybe I am offbase to some respect because I haven't lived through what others have, but that can't account for everything I'm seeing here

PPS I am also not big on all of the moral suasion and "betrayal" talk. Again, theres a line of demarcation somewhere and I can't peg it exactly but there's an important difference between "righteous" and "self-righteous"

Think we're tip-toeing that line too much too often, something we can't afford


Chiming in to the exchange...

There's a limit to what one can judge about a person because they like pop music. At the same time, there are probably some broader patterns in how people in our society "consume" commercial music that are relevant areas for social analysis. But its at the point where one starts assuming that there are no limits to what one can judge about a person based on their musical preferences that it becomes a problem.

People connect to music for all sorts of different reasons - intellectual, emotional, relational, nostalgic. And musicians tend to have a much broader appreciation for a very wide range of music, including music that is not necessarily "profound" in any sense.

Incidentally, speaking of the soundtrack to life thing, I love to listen to Pandora Radio on the internet while I work or play at the computer. I've found some of the most fascinating and incredible music I never would have heard of if I hadn't just had it "on" while I went about my business. For me, its relaxing and satisfying like any other pastime or hobby.

I really think this discourse is very important. I think any critical look at culture is like the DO looking at the entire person vs. the specialist looking at one specific area, the fingernail might be just as indicative of an ailment as the heartbeat. Its just one of many ways that the oppressors keep the oppressed sleeping. By looking at this one way critically, it may allow us to see other ways to "mend" the problem, seemingly unrelated ways. Keeping the goal constant in the mind allows the dialogue to be pretty broad without diminishing that goal.

Just for you Kid, Sam Cooke is by far the sexier... ;)

There's a limit to what one can judge about a person because they like pop music. At the same time, there are probably some broader patterns in how people in our society "consume" commercial music that are relevant areas for social analysis. But its at the point where one starts assuming that there are no limits to what one can judge about a person based on their musical preferences that it becomes a problem.


Agreed. I don't think you can tell anything about a person by whether or not they like pop music, and I don't think there is anything wrong with liking pop music.

This is one of those subjects that gets into that confusing "reverse" debate. Criticize the music industry, and people get defensive and take it personally and assume that there is something to defend or be embarrassed about if they like pop music. People are the same way about television, or junk food. If someone criticizes junk food, other people will react defensively and accuse the critic of being "holier than thou" or something, or trying to put on superior airs.

The only reason this is worth discussing at all, is because people act exactly the same way, the same thing happens, with the political system, the Democratic party, and Obama.

People are free to "work within the party" - I do - and campaign for Democrats - I do - and vote for Democrats - I do. But I am also going to say that the Democrats are little different from the Republicans, and that we are not ever going to be able to vote "change" or "reform" into being, and that the party is captured and controlled by the ruling class and serves the ruling class. That is exactly what I have said and do say "within the party" at local meetings, and to people in the general public when I have canvassed for a Dem.

The problem comes when I make those statements, and people then feel personally insulted by them and vigorously defend the party, working within the party, and voting Democratic to promote the idea that there is no alternative.

It seems to me we can say that the music industry exploits the performers and rips off the audiences, that bad art is driving out good when music is commercialized, and that this is part of a capitalist juggernaut that is destroying culture, without saying that others are bad and wrong for listening to pop music. But that is how people hear it - "oh you are so high and mighty, dismissing pop music as junk. I guess you think you are superior to me now."

Amazing how wrapped up we all are in the two schools of American social interaction - the snake oil salesman and the tent revival preacher. We see everything as personal consumer choice, or else as personal beliefs. Smart marketers - like Obama - have combined both. He is a preacher and a salesman.

We see the same pattern everywhere. Criticize Wall Street, and people who work there will think "wait a minute. Lots of good people have jobs on Wall Street - I know them. They are not all evil." Who said "they were all evil?" Where does this idea come from that everything public and political can or should be reduced down to personal choices?

There is some way in which our ability to separate out the personal from the political has been impaired.

Let's look at another example from the apple industry. If you talk about what is wrong with the industry - a handful of varieties, selected and grown for appearance and durability rather than flavor or nutrition, the market dominated by those crappy Red Delicious, and the loss of regional varieties, seasonal varieties and diversity in general - and someone will always say "hey! I like Red Delicious!" They are offended, and they also have a feeling that a person is not supposed to like Red Delicious. Odd contradiction there. They then will cast you as a zealot, a purist, a person on some esoteric and obscure mission, a person who dwells on relatively minor things, and is perhaps obsessed with the issue in some mentally unhealthy way.

But people do not like Red Delicious. We know that as a fact. I have been involved in hundreds of blind taste tests, where random people from the public sample 10, 20 or even 30 apple varieties and rate them for flavor and texture and aroma. I have seen over 300 varieties tested in this way. There are 10-15 varieties that consistently score in the top ten - it varies with season, location, year-to-year, etc. But Red Delicious always places last, or close to it. Yet those same people will swear they like Red Delicious.

They have been marketed to "like" Red Delicious, and this has clouded their thinking, and they have internalized the choice that has been made for them and will defend that choice as though they had been personally attacked if you say anything bad about their choice. I think people defend their "choice" more vehemently and get more upset when it is criticized if it was not actually their choice to begin with.

So... I don't think we can say anything about a person based on the fact that they aresaying that they like Red Delicious; they will hear any criticism of Red Delicious as though that were at issue, and as though they had been personally insulted; they will see anyone countering the marketing as a zealot or purist or nutcase; they don't actually know what they like; so long as they have this confusion in their minds between what they like and are supposed to like, it is very difficult to pry them away from their "choice;" this constricts their range of choice and their autonomy and their ability to think critically about anything, and has political and social ramifications.

Now, how does people's "choice" of Red Delicious differ from their "choice" of Obama? Obama may be a nice guy, no better and no worse than any other politician. Red Delicious may be an OK apple. That is not the point, nor is it "wrong" to "like" either of them. However, it is hard to ignore that in both cases people are letting marketers do their thinking for them, and if you are in the habit of letting marketers make up your mind for you on consumer choices, you are more likely to let marketers do your thinking for you in all areas - including politics. The solution is not to give up Red Delicious - nor TV, nor junk food, nor pop music, nor Obama. The solution has nothing to do with our "personal choices" or "personal beliefs" at all.

I remember when I first realized that tv commercials were using pop music to target specific consumers. 70s music for a particular pickup truck, 80s pop for fashion or a cellphone service.

hehe at the risk of the entire community voting to tombstone me...listen here to the winning entry at this year's Eurovision.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8JRtGMBUz0

It's horribly pop-y BUT fascinating in its corporate treatment of ethnic and cultural diversity.

The guy is Norwegian, but born in Minsk. The dancers a Scandinavian folk troup, but performing 'Russian' dance moves, the song is in English, the blonde backup ladies could have come from NYC or Oklahoma.

I can't explain it, but it's almost as if it's 'Americanized.'
Not at all what I expected.


Well what if I told you this is nothing new? It's as old as the phonograph.

I'm sure I'm the only one here who knows anything about,say Soviet jazz (http://patefon.knet.ru/kdf/main.html) of the 20s and 30s.


Jazz appeared in Russia first time in 1922, its rise being connected with the name of Valentin Parnach [1], but the earliest jazz (or "jazz-like") records date back only to 1926 [2, p.63], as the major part of such bands in the twenties were never invited to make a disc. Analysing the remaining ones, we can note a considerable resemblance with contemporary American and German dance music examples, but some attempts to create the own jazz works were not rare, too. So in the late thirties more than one third of jazz recordings in the Soviet Union were the products of home authors.

Jazz in the USSR was mostly an independently developing phenomenon, as certain difficulties in contacts with Western and especially American jazzmen existed, so Soviet musicians had to learn after gramophone records. The other important trait of the Soviet jazz originality was its synthesis with theatre and song, prepared by the whole course of the Russian light music school development, where vaudeville and vocal art played the main roles. Only few bands (like Alexander Varlamov's septet) moved aside from the dominating tendence, playing pure jazz music.

As in many other lands, the opinions about jazz in USSR were often polar. The "Proletar writer" Maxim Gorky stigmatized it in the article "About the Music of the Fats" published in 1928 at the "Pravda" [3] newspaper pages, and that critical dirt poured out over the heads of jazz players by the Russian Association of the Proletar Musicians (RAPM) cannot be counted at all. However, jazz in Soviet Russia didn't break down and survived.

Soviet jazz of the 1930 - 1940s is a unique musical phenomenon that flourished in conditions of cultural isolation and showed the whole world that the art of jazz is really ubiqutous and that Russian musicians can play at highest world standards. In 1944 Benny Goodman, one of the most famous American jazz-band leaders, together with his collective played the "Intermezzo" presented to him by A.Tsfasman. This example showes the worldwide recognition of the Soviet jazz at its best.

http://www.russianartandbooks.com/russianart/images/items/300x1200/00031R.jpg (1922)

Well what if I told you this is nothing new? It's as old as the phonograph.


The phonograph era is what I am calling "new."

I guess I don't know what you are saying.

What is my angle that I am going on about?

Let me put it this way: there are several issues that you are very close to and passionate and outspoken about and to you those issues are microcosms of the political, OF politics. They're not. Stiill, the trouble is NOT simply that you're wrong about this premise.

Carrying on with the abovemindset, these topics become of central importance not just as metaphors but as issues unto themselves. Examples being music and farming in particular and tech to a lesser extent.

The greater trouble is you're way too close to these topics and you've lost any sense of perspecitve or porportion. There are a billion and one other "issues" you could embrace and that are equally dire and carry equal grave consequences and so on..

Your chosen avenue of pontificating endlessly on these topics, an avenue you get brownie points for working completely to death, is *pointless* because you aren't going to solve ANY problem viewing it as a microcosm and all you're really doing is eliciting other people to write lengthy replies about their opinions of pop music or their opinion of television or whatever the fuck the topic du jour is. That ain't political Mike, and neither you or I get to define "political" so the difference here can't be reduced to semantics or claims that one side is trying to "narrow the debate".

I get that you can write treatises on things like "how pop music relates to and serves as a metaphor for electoral politics" but rather than making an important political observation all you've functionally done is dress up the pig

Let me put it this way: there are several issues that you are very close to and passionate and outspoken about and to you those issues are microcosms of the political, OF politics. They're not. Stiill, the trouble is NOT simply that you're wrong about this premise.

Carrying on with the abovemindset, these topics become of central importance not just as metaphors but as issues unto themselves. Examples being music and farming in particular and tech to a lesser extent.

The greater trouble is you're way too close to these topics and you've lost any sense of perspecitve or porportion. There are a billion and one other "issues" you could embrace and that are equally dire and carry equal grave consequences and so on..

Your chosen avenue of pontificating endlessly on these topics, an avenue you get brownie points for working completely to death, is *pointless* because you aren't going to solve ANY problem viewing it as a microcosm and all you're really doing is eliciting other people to write lengthy replies about their opinions of pop music or their opinion of television or whatever the fuck the topic du jour is. That ain't political Mike, and neither you or I get to define "political" so the difference here can't be reduced to semantics or claims that one side is trying to "narrow the debate".

I get that you can write treatises on things like "how pop music relates to and serves as a metaphor for electoral politics" but rather than making an important political observation all you've functionally done is dress up the pig


Thanks.

I disagree. I wouldn't talk about them at all, if A) they didn't come up from others and B) I wasn't relating them to class struggle C) if I didn't happen to know what I am talking about on these subjects.

I think you make an assumption about this, and so then hear what I say as merely about a pet cause or a personal passion.

For example, you heard what I said about Microsoft versus Linux as a discussion of brand loyalty and the relative merits of different consumer products. You misunderstood. There isn't any Linux "brand" and it is not a consumer product. What I said had nothing whatsoever to do with bran preference, and was instead a discussion of public control of resources versus privatization. Your comments strongly suggest to me that rather than disagreeing with me, you did not understand what I was saying.

You may think that art, agriculture, and technology are distractions, are niche interests - merely "passions" and so therefore to be dismissed. Fine. But to a priori discount and dismiss them as subjects of conversation because of some imagined bias or agenda on the part of the person talking about them is the exact way that any and all topics can and are dismissed.

That is why I asked what else you would have us not discuss, that you would have us see as trivial and a distraction.

Can BP talk about habitat degradation for herptiles, or is that merely his "passion" and so therefore trivial and a distraction and off limits in a political discussion?

Can Mary talk about education, or is that merely her little niche interest that would distract us from the important stuff?

It seems to me that you see as relevant that which happens to interest you, and that you see as irrelevant that which does not interest you. It also seems to me that you are insisting on seeing politics itself as a discrete and limited niche interest, of interest to only the informed few, to be approached academically, and to exclude most everything that does not directly bear on a certain type of theoretical and academic political discussion. You run the risk of turning politics itself into your own private niche interest, your own personal passion, and so make the subject of politics trivial, irrelevant and a distraction.

Can Mary talk about education, or is that merely her little niche interest that would distract us from the important stuff?

It seems to me that you see as relevant that which happens to interest you, and that you see as irrelevant that which does not interest you. It also seems to me that you are insisting on seeing politics itself as a discrete and limited niche interest, of interest to only the informed few, to be approached academically, and to exclude most everything that does not directly bear on a certain type of theoretical and academic political discussion. You run the risk of turning politics itself into your own private niche interest, your own personal passion, and so make the subject of politics trivial, irrelevant and a distraction.

Yeah, I could see how this argument makes sense, IF it really worked like that. Mary talks about education and is passionate and knowledgeable about it for sure. Buit its not quite the same as when you tell us that farming or culture or whatever is VITAL and CRITICAL and at the heart of the problem and so on

I'm not arguing you're being hyperbolic because its hard to be overstate ANY case when it comes to the ravages of private property and "free enterprise", but I think its a mild case of tunnel vision on your part. Not saying its a mortal sin either, or trying to stifle any discussion.

But look at the end result of some of these threads that devolve into little more than people posting their opinions and "personal observations" and so on..if you just think about it from that perspective you can judge for yourself how effective your posts have proven from a tactical perspective

Further, to be honest I don't think socialism is going to usher in a new age of cultural excellence or even re-make farming as a small scale family oriented enterprise. I think all of your complaints will likely be equally valid then as now because none of them really strike to the crux of what we're struggling against. I don't think socialism has shit to do with the individual craftsman or whether or not he has private access to the tools of his own trade. In fact, I think that is borderline as to whether it even IS a socialist conception.

I have no doubt that you are channeling people who are unhappy with the way agriculture works or music works or Microsoft works or whatever. But that doesn't necessarily equate directly to the needs and demands of the working class. "The people" ain't synonymous with "the working class". One is some crazy-ass remnant from Rousseau that may or may not even mean anything concrete.

Hell I strongly encourage you to keep talking, but try to remember the script. It seems kind of freeform but the last line is always "Workers of all countries (the world), unite!"

Point taken, kid.

It makes a difference if we are talking about the personal for the purpose of building solidarity in a context of class struggle, or if we are talking about the personal as a distraction from that.

One thing - since I rely on you and anax to reel me back in, I know I can go a little overboard without steering the entire discussion into a dead end, or building some sort of following of true believers in "my cause," and also I am often trying to voice what many others are thinking, and make the most persuasive case possible, not because of personal passion or to "win" any argument, but rather to get more things into the discussion, to have more raw material for people to work with here - especially things that are otherwise outside of the scope of the discussion. I can see how that could seem to be a distraction. Even if it is, it may be a distraction that should be discussed for the purpose of getting it out of the way.

But look at the end result of some of these threads that devolve into little more than people posting their opinions and "personal observations" and so on..if you just think about it from that perspective you can judge for yourself how effective your posts have proven from a tactical perspective

Further, to be honest I don't think socialism is going to usher in a new age of cultural excellence or even re-make farming as a small scale family oriented enterprise. I think all of your complaints will likely be equally valid then as now because none of them really strike to the crux of what we're struggling against. I don't think socialism has shit to do with the individual craftsman or whether or not he has private access to the tools of his own trade. In fact, I think that is borderline as to whether it even IS a socialist conception.
Geez kid,it almost sounds like you're expecting that stuff you post on the internet is going to crystallize into some sort of great plan for people's revolution.I thought each of us were all through that phase by now.Socialism is 'the shit",it will just never take hold in a people as ideologically constipated as Americans are.

The world is a toll-free toilet
Our mouths neurological assholes
And psychologically speaking
We're in a state of mental diarrhea
Talking shit a mile a minute
Or in a state of constipated notions
Can't think of nothin' but shit
And in this world of
Stinky futures, shitty memories and
Constipated 19 now-nows
Emerges from the hiney of your head
The doo doo chasers,
The Promentalshitbackwashpsychosisenemasquad
The prune juice of the mind
The doo doo chasers
Friends of roto-rooter



I have no doubt that you are channeling people who are unhappy with the way agriculture works or music works or Microsoft works or whatever. But that doesn't necessarily equate directly to the needs and demands of the working class. "The people" ain't synonymous with "the working class". One is some crazy-ass remnant from Rousseau that may or may not even mean anything concrete.

Hell I strongly encourage you to keep talking, but try to remember the script. It seems kind of freeform but the last line is always "Workers of all countries (the world), unite!"

i think the "workers of the world" have long since surpassed us.There are certainly those (http://www.iww.org/en/node/4707) who could teach phony-ass American "leftists a thing or two about how it's done.

Immigrant Detainees on Hunger Strike in South Texas ICE Facility
Submitted by Diane on Thu, 04/30/2009 - 4:55pm.
By Greg Rodriguez
Rio Grande Valley, South Texas --It is known that nearly one-hundred of the immigrants being detained at the Department of Homeland Security(DHS)/Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s(ICE) Port Isabel Detention Center (PIDC) have been on a hunger strike since April 22, 2009. PIDC is a prison used to detain immigrants arrested by the United States government. It is located in an extremely isolated area of the remote South Texas town called Los Fresnos.

The detainees have resorted to this form of non-violent direct action after months of demanding adequate medical attention and an end to abuses by guards; to no avail.

The responsible parties are DHS, ICE and more specifically, Field Director for ICE - Michael J. Pitts - who has been trying to break up the hunger strike by planning the isolation of participants, pressuring them to eat, and calling for the speedy deportation of detainees engaging in the strike – tactics which will not solve the problems, but instead deny justice to the struggling detainees. Dora Schriro, Special Advisor on ICE and Detention/Removal to DHS, is also among the responsible heads for her failure to report to the public on the conditions at PIDC.

The hunger strikers are also demand due process. In an interview with the Texas Observer, Rama Carty- one of the detainees and hunger strikers at the Port Isabel prison – said to the reporter: “It’s unjust…We are held here beyond any reasonable time, period.” Carty has been at the Port Isabel facility for about thirteen months now, according to the same report.

Deplorable conditions and lack of legal access are not uncommon at these types of facilities nationwide. It is important to note that the PIDC detainees have set a precedent for all the victims of immigration detention with this form of direct action. They have called on the community to make their struggle public.

Further, to be honest I don't think socialism is going to usher in a new age of cultural excellence or even re-make farming as a small scale family oriented enterprise.


Why not? The Soviets supported the traditional arts and protected the fruit orchardists of Kazahkstan and closed that land to development or exploitation.


I think all of your complaints will likely be equally valid then as now because none of them really strike to the crux of what we're struggling against.

Huh? Exploitation and destruction of land, the arts, and farming by capitalism is not part of the struggle?


I don't think socialism has shit to do with the individual craftsman or whether or not he has private access to the tools of his own trade.

OK, and how does that relate to what I said?


I have no doubt that you are channeling people who are unhappy with the way agriculture works or music works or Microsoft works or whatever.

I have no idea what you are hearing, but it bears no resemblance to anything I am saying.

You are profoudly ignorant in these areas, and completely unable to analyze those things as part of the class struggle, and so therefore claim them to be irrelevant subjects.

The domination of the arts, communications, and food production and distribution by capitalism is not relevant to promoting socialism? By what stretch of the imagination? The arts, communication and food are not important subjects?

What have I said that contradicts or does not contribute to "workers of all countries (the world), unite!"

We apply class analysis to the work people are doing. Class analysis does not replace life. The Microsoft remarks I have made can lead to radicalizing and organizing tech workers, likewise my remarks about art and culture and farming. What else do you imagine I am doing?

What other work, other than communications work, farming, and art, are irrelevant and a distraction from class struggle in your view? What other interests are inappropriate for the application of class analysis? You have not answered that question. Upon what basis are those three a distraction?

I can't help but notice that in the arts, communications, and farming people are working, and that capitalists are ripping them off. So if workers of the world unite does not include those workers, would that be because you do not see that work as useful or valuable, or because those are not interesting to you?

You are trying to force people to fit into your idea of class analysis rather than giving the the tool of class analysis to people to apply to their lives.

Socialism has no power whatsoever if it requires people to give up their lives and their work to "be" socialists, because you don't think the things people are interested in, or are working at are relevant. What that boils down to is the script you are writing only includes that which you are interested in, and dismisses what others are interested in - and your main interest is in the script itself. You go to the restaurant to read the menu, and argue about it, rather than eat the food -that part of the process would be irrelevant. Then you insist that we all go to the restaurant with the best menu, and accuse people who want to talk about the meal rather than the menu of distracting us.

Marxism is an analytical tool, it is not a religion. Why replace liberalism with Marxism? Same tune, different lyrics.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v474/autorank/publicenemy.gif
http://www.publicenemy.com/pb/viewtopic.php?t=49954&sid=1

I'm totally honored! And no, it's not bourgeois narcissism. I finally impressed my daughter.