Shame on you for not liking shitty music!
Our last 18 articles were either about politics, or talking shit about Christians. I figure it's time for a break. Last week the New York Times ran an article on "Rockism". Here's their definition:
Is roughly equivalent to how I feel when I listen to Xtina's "dirrrrrrrrrrty":
Anyone who disagrees is obviously an elitist snob. Guess what, New York Times writer? You are, as always, full of shit. People don't prefer music from the 60's and 70's because they want to impress you. They prefer it because it is actually better. Can you get that through your thick skull? I don't listen to the Ramones or Who so I can talk about it later with dorky record store clerks. I like them because they make songs that are actually fucking listenable. You cannot claim that all music is roughly equivalent. If you were to say that 101 Dinosaur Jokes is just as important and influential as the Complete Works of William Shakespeare even your fellow douchebags in the NY Times "Arts and Leisure" department would laugh your ass out of the building. Unfortunately for you, I have to point it out to the world instead. I hope your wife reads this and divorces you.
Music critics have a word for this kind of verdict, this knee-jerk backlash against producer-powered idols who didn't spend years touring dive bars. Not a very elegant word, but a useful one. The word is rockism, and among the small but extraordinarily pesky group of people who obsess over this stuff, rockism is a word meant to start fights.Ok, that kind of sounds like me. Maybe they're right! Maybe i'm not giving new music a chance! Lets see what else the New York Times has to say, you know I really like the way the New York Times surrounds a story, it helps me never have to think for myself. My wife loves the Times weekend section, I like to check out the magazines. Our daughter likes to find out whats going on on the web.
...
Rockism means idolizing the authentic old legend (or underground hero) while mocking the latest pop star; lionizing punk while barely tolerating disco; loving the live show and hating the music video; extolling the growling performer while hating the lip-syncher.
You can argue that the shape-shifting feminist hip-pop of Ms. Aguilera is every bit as radical as the punk rock of the 1970's (and it is)Yeah! Absolutely. I was just thinking that. I love how Christina ponders the influence of neo-facism on youth culture. In fact, the sense of empowerment I feel when I hear this Clash verse:
Kick over the wall cause government's to fall
How can you refuse it?
Let fury have the hour, anger can be power
Do you know that you can use it?
Is roughly equivalent to how I feel when I listen to Xtina's "dirrrrrrrrrrty":
Ah, dirrty (dirrty)
Filthy (filthy)
Nasty (Christina), you nasty (yeah)
Too dirrty to clean my act up
If you ain't dirrty
You ain't here to party (woo!)
Anyone who disagrees is obviously an elitist snob. Guess what, New York Times writer? You are, as always, full of shit. People don't prefer music from the 60's and 70's because they want to impress you. They prefer it because it is actually better. Can you get that through your thick skull? I don't listen to the Ramones or Who so I can talk about it later with dorky record store clerks. I like them because they make songs that are actually fucking listenable. You cannot claim that all music is roughly equivalent. If you were to say that 101 Dinosaur Jokes is just as important and influential as the Complete Works of William Shakespeare even your fellow douchebags in the NY Times "Arts and Leisure" department would laugh your ass out of the building. Unfortunately for you, I have to point it out to the world instead. I hope your wife reads this and divorces you.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home