conscience

How come that doesn't surprise me?

Jepthah

Where did this myth, this bulls--t idea that "rock musicians" have to, hell, are practically REQUIRED to be, ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, culturally clueless and just plain STUPID? Where?

This is not a problem with Avril alone, and it's partially the reason I began this thread.

When rock musicians made music that was essential (and a select few still do...) they knew who came before them, who their influences were, WHY they were, and had an AIM involved with their own music.

You can fling poo at the bloodthirsty media companies and record labels all you like. The "artists" themselves are largely to blame for not having higher ambitions themselves.

Avril, personally, is not the target of my indignation. And there is nothing wrong with a young girl who loves to make music seeking to entertain. Hell, the Donnas do the same thing as Avril (from a certain point of view) and I don't mind them at all. But if you think about what I am saying maybe you will begin to see the distinction.

Musicians need to wake up because the media machines will not change their ways. It just upsets me when I see it happening again and again on a large scale, like with Avril. Her gaffe was nothing more or less than a red flag...one of many.

SAShepherd

Jepthah, I just think you're being too hard on Avril and holding her up as an example of "declining musical values" (my phrase, not yours) when I don't think things are worse now than they were 10, 20, 40 years ago.

I'm not sure what myth you're referring to when you say that "rock musicians" have to, hell, are practically REQUIRED to be, ignorant, uninformed, uneducated, culturally clueless and just plain STUPID? I know I didn't say that, I don't think anyone else on here did, and I've never been aware of that myth in general. I'm interested in where you've heard that. (Really, I am.)

Yes, some musicians have a better idea of the musical history that preceded them than others. Why is that? I'm guessing that some of that is simply due to age -- the Donnas (who, from what I know, do have a much broader sense of musical history) are all 21+ years old and have been playing music professionally for, what, 5 years or more? Avril has been "in the music biz" (i.e., recording and releasing albums) for a year and is 17 years old. I don't expect her to have the musical background of the Donnas. Maybe 4 years and 2 albums from now (if she lasts that long, which is iffy at best), she'll be able to.

But the broader question is, who cares? I understand your argument to be (and I could be misintrepeting it here) that musicians should be more aware of their musical history and should be making music with a purpose (or "aim").

My response to the first part of the argument is sure, that'd be nice. But I'm not going to base my personal tastes on artists' knowledge of their musical roots. Yes, I understand that artists who are aware of those roots may produce better music. But I care about the music, not the roots.

To the second part, who cares? I mean, popular music has always included music meant mostly for disposable pleasure. Avril is merely the latest in a long line of artists for that purpose.

I guess in the end, in order for me to buy your argument, I have to believe that more lousy music is being produced now than, say, 10 years ago. And I guess I disagree -- I'm finding just as much good music now as I did 10 years ago. Probably more so, thanks in part to this forum. Maybe not quite as much of it is being played on the radio, but even that is probably a result of my changing tastes. (For example, I'm willing to bet that there's a lot more good rap music on the radio than there was 10 or 15 years ago, but because I'm not a rap fan, I wouldn't know.)

Jepthah

SAS,

You're right, of course. But there's one flaw in your very rational and correct point of view: it is impossible for us to hermetically seal ourselves off from these very low, unambitious, crass and lazy pop culture figures.

Now, to get a little more real, there are FAR worse things in the world than an 18-year-old Canadian who bops around stage in baggy pants and sings about "Sk8er Bois." But bitching about it is sometimes what I feel like doing as a last resort, because I do see a de-evolution going on of popular music. The process is most definitely not new, and it happens in cycles, but this cycle has been going on for a long time--TOO long.

I am waiting for some real musical artists to get genuinely FED UP with it again and express it in creative ways. I am not a musician, so there's no chace of that for me. I just have to stand back and pray (and bitch).

boc4ever

I think you are 100% correct about this. NIN, the Downward Spiral was the last album that sparked an original genre of music. I'm sure there are people that will argue that Reznor uses a ton of programming and he isn't really a musician per say. But to me, music is what is created from the mind of the individual. Not necessarily how it is created from a physical standpoint. I can't think of another album that impacted the music industry that dramatically since then. Don't get me wrong. There have been a ton of impressive albums since then. For example, everything Radiohead has released since the Bends. However, I'm talking about music that changes the face of music. Before NIN, I'd say Nirvana held that title. The way I feel is that Pop Music will always be around, like it or not. But until I see an artist that inspires a whole new musical direction, I think music is in a sad state of affairs for the most part.

Ralph Wiggum

There is plenty of exciting music being made, it just isn't being played on the radio or MTV.

Art and commerce are difficult to reconcile.

devilpants

Why would she pronounce Bowie correctly? She can't spell "Levine", either.

Jepthah

Rypro 525

Here is the reason for the mispernounciation (according to Rolling Stone Magazine

"Lavigne never listened to much music until she hit puberty, and even then it was mostly country divas such as Shania Twain or mainstream rock bands like the Goo Goo Dolls and Matchbox Twenty. Which is one reason she had never seen David Bowie's name when it came time to read it off a list of nominees at a Grammy press conference in January. (She pronounced the "bow-" like "bow-wow" rather than "bow-tie.") "Did people think that was bad?" she asks coyly. "What's the big deal? I was born in 1984 -- why would I know who he is? My parents didn't bring me up listening to him. Besides, people mispronounce my name all the time."
http://www.rollingstone.com/features...n.asp?pid=1555

Mopower

I don't think I have ever heard a David Bowie song....oh wait, he was on Conan one night but I turned it over because the song SUCKED ASS. Thus another reason why she might not know who Bowie is.....not that I'm defending the dumb bytch.

devilpants

I was born in 1956 so I don't have to pronounce George Washington properly because he was before my time.

Rypro 525

Sort of off topic, but some might enjoy this


Avril in a school girls uniform

Da Thrilla

^
|
|
|
|

Mopower

Damn she's so....











Nasty.