Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <123 |
| Author | |
moshkito 
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16165 |
 Posted: January 26 2014 at 13:20 |
I am more of a believer that the "punk" think is actually a continuation of a movement that started 10 years before in theater and film, and was called "angry young men" (both English and American variety!), which became well known at the time and gave us some writers, actors and directors, and I really believe that it was just a natural progression of the arts that it would eventually come up and down to others. The proto-type punk, like Sid or Johnny, is an enfant terrible that is rejecting anything and everything, and their feelings were not being heard, until someone decided to take a serious stab at it, and one producer, specially in London, made this scene come alive. But that 's like saying that Marlon Brando screaming Stella is not almost the same thing. Sometimes that is all it takes. America's version, of course, was Martha and George screaming at each other after Tennessee Williams spent his time insulting all his characters! Lyrically, it was very similar to a lot of rock music, right after the anti-war sentiment.
The sad part is that "reactionary" scenes don't usually last, and have a tendency to fizzle real quick, and the punk scene came and went and that was that. But sometimes, I still question, was there anything else worth while in the whole scene? And, honestly, I can not find too many things in it that make it worth discussing other than the attitude, but that's like saying that Mick Jagger is not a "punk", and he is! But he is a famous punk! Edited by moshkito - January 26 2014 at 14:01 |
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|
 |
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: January 27 2014 at 04:53 |
I don't often either understand or agree with you Pedro but I do concur with this sentiment. Perhaps play-write John Osborne was an unwitting carrier of the latent Punk virus via Look back in Anger. However, this was 1956 and contemporaneous musical developments at the time were certainly neither in harmonious or dissonant step with any such literary zeitgeist. (perhaps I resent your implication that the theater and cinema had their fingers closer to the pulse than musicians at this time?) That angry young WOMAN, Ulrike Meinhoff probably summed up best the dichotomy at the heart of permissive culture v activist dissent: Protest is when I say this does not please me. Resistance is when I ensure what does not please me occurs no more As far as the very notion of the OP's 'cultural legitimacy' goes, maybe the Greek myth of Erostratus can teach us a salutary lesson i,e, the destroyer of a cultural artifact is always more famous than the artifact he defiled |
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16165 |
Posted: January 27 2014 at 15:02 |
In some ways, I think that rock music had a lot more guts to do what it went on to do later, than theater or film for example, but when you see Godard just tearing up the whole concept of "film" as if he was ripped senseless with a camera on, it makes you wonder who is reading who, and who is seeing what and who is copying who?
If you get a chance, pull out "Tonight We All Love in London" and then ask yourself, what is the connection between all these folks, and this is the part that we're not asking ourselves.
Sadly, there is not enough of these "artistic things" these days, to help show music better and the media state is so harsh on these things that I think there will be another revolution soon.
Who woulda thunk it. Citizen Kane, is still true after all these years! Edited by moshkito - January 27 2014 at 15:06 |
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16165 |
Posted: January 28 2014 at 07:19 |
|
Hi,
If any of you, want a slight parallel and how things sometimes connect, check this link out and make sure you read it.
In America, like everywhere else, a lot of things connect, despite the media always wanting to hide history, in one way or another. It is very nice to see the NY Times show some care on this one, but like the Washington Post, there are times when these folks like to be anti-establishment, and show the group how screwed they can be. And to this day, there are many countries that hound their singers and artists mercilessly, and incarcerate them.
A life like this, rarely goes by un-noticed, and to say that anyone, punk, or rap, or otherwise, does not have the ability to stand up is very incorrect.
There is as much legitimacy to prog, as there is metal, as there is punk or anything else. It's how we relate to it that is different and the true issue. Sometimes, just like school, we just don't bother with history, and you might even consider that American high school history books removed indigenous and black folks from their history up to about 20 or 30 years ago! Sort of like jazz and blues never existed kind of thing, which goes really well with Tom Dowd's short history on his DVD. Edited by moshkito - January 28 2014 at 07:24 |
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: January 30 2014 at 05:59 |
|
To progress this thread any further I think everyone would be quite keen to learn what the OP means by the term 'cultural legitimacy' (in simple terms and frames of reference we can ALL understand)
|
|
|
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 5898 |
Posted: February 08 2014 at 07:15 |
|
Again, sorry I haven't had time for participating on this forum in general and this thread in particular, but this very long article from that webzine mentioned in the OP must surely be relevant. It basically concerns modern underground metal's legacy from not just the literary traditions of epic poetry but also the cultural/religious traditions underlying those. The specific examples used are Atlantean Kodex, Caladan Brood and Summoning but other artists are mentioned... it actually briefly touches on classic prog rock's influence too.
|
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16165 |
Posted: February 13 2014 at 14:04 |
Funny that you should post this after my post. Cultural legitimacy is a funny thing. It can go both ways, and become a hit single and make someone famous, and it can go the other way, and no one ever heard it, but 40 years later someone finds that it was good and very strong, and we didn't see it at the time, because we were into something else. This is the part that is hard for us all. It is only "culturally legitimate", if you check the other arts, and you can compare them and see what gives. There are many roads and scenes that came and went, and many of those scenes were legitimate, though you could rightly say that they were peculiar to the scene in one place or another. For example, the glam thing in Hollywood/Sunset Strip was not the same as London or NY, but you or I can not say they were not legitimate at all. Punk, was legitimate in that it was a voice for something in London that was not being heard, regardless of what it seemed to be and came from. But that type of anger, was always around in one form or another, and did not have the same theme. Hearing Gil Scott Heron rap in "Performance" will send chills up your spine! But we can not say that eventually this became a valid form, because its strength was massive and it was to the point, although Gil was going after something that most of us do not think about, specially at the time, when ... the joke was that when you went to San Francisco you go with flowers in your hair, and when you go to London, you have a silk scarf around your neck. And no one in rock'nroll pays attention to the lyrics! Which is the real issue in the end! It's like they are not a part of it all, or the music. Where does one start is the problem. The OP is very nebulous and generic, and in a sad way, helps bring out a lot of ideas, that ... many would rather not hear or study, but these are ALWAYS, the enzyme that makes a lot of these scenes come alive. It is our not wanting to accept them, or appreciate them, that hurts and causes the anger. But one can easily compare Pete Seeger to the Pistols, and rightly say, there was a point to their voice, though there are times when we just don't want to hear it! Because it isn't the music that we want to talk about?
Edited by moshkito - February 13 2014 at 14:06 |
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|
|
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007 Location: Penal Colony Status: Offline Points: 11415 |
Posted: February 14 2014 at 04:54 |
|
^ Well I sorta get some of that (although it's Friday so I'm slightly inebriated) but I'm not sure that legitimacy should be conferred on certain music just because similarities can be traced in other art forms. I mean we are very often a race of copy cats and plagiarists versus artists who arrive at similar content independently. It stands to reason that form and structure will be replicated across many artistic disciplines but surely the overriding criteria for our discussion here is subject matter?
Yes, many of the musical styles we afford value were a conflation and accumulation of zeitgeist, scenes, shared influences and similarly minded individuals creating their own space for expression. However, so much of the music I seem to value highly appears to have been that sourced from mavericks (Thelonious Monk) misanthropes (Mark E Smith/the Fall) madmen (Lee Perry) and recluses (Scott Walker, Syd Barret) Although we can categorize the foregoing into broad generic styles, to claim with any credibility that say, Monk was Jazz would be at best misleading and at worst only serve to undermine his uniqueness. I guess I'm trying to say that erm...the driver (artist) is more important than the vehicle (music style) hence our endless rubbernecking as we slow down past crash sites like PA.... Good point you raised about the anger/dissent/protest in Pete Seeger and Gil Scot Heron being drawn from the same ne-er-do-well as that of Punk, albeit the fashion cops ensured that neither camp would hook up and become stronger/more influential by sharing their core values etc.Brand loyalty is engineered to be as strong in the record shops as the supermarkets. All up, I still cling to the idea that cultural legitimacy involves all the perils of a moving target and a never ending revisionism that is invariably monopolised by condescending academics. People in the future will be able to read books about Prog, Metal and Punk which outline their respective credentials with a view to knowing their value. This will mean squat to those who lived through their creation. Better to live than to know I say.  Edited by ExittheLemming - February 14 2014 at 05:58 |
|
|
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008 Location: Denmark Status: Offline Points: 5898 |
Posted: February 16 2014 at 13:03 |
|
The best I can clarify the "cultural legitimacy" part right now is the genres in question having some kind of unifying artistic ethos or philosophical principles behind its style, consciously or not, that comes from a certain heritage within world cultural history perhaps continuing other movements or reacting against them through the specific cultural vantage point of its origin - in a way that leaves some kind of long-term lasting impact on cultural history.
|
|
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
|
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007 Location: Grok City Status: Offline Points: 16165 |
Posted: March 02 2014 at 11:32 |
The only concern I worry about, is that we have a tendency to dwindle these down to just one person, or thing, and that tends to isolate the group/event, and make it less important than otherwise.
In many ways, that is the difference in the cultural legitimacy of anything. If only 4 people got up, burned themselves in protest, and newspapers ignored it, it was lost in the translation and no one will know about it or understand it and its motivation. But when a bunch of newspapers and media get onto it, and publicize it, now we consider it important, while a movie, play, painting, or novel, had a similar event that we did not know about because we did not read it or heard about it, and the local news in San Diego didn't mention it! That's a problem, because now, a scene in London is likely to get ignored as much as a scene in San Diego will get ignored in London!
Now, it's "cultural legitimacy" is an issue, because London is bigger, and 3 people wrote about it, and in San Diego, no one did! That's scary! And later, of course, you come to believe London is right, because San Diego couldn't possibly have a scene, unless it was part Mexican? ... that's not only non-sensical, it is also insulting!
In the end, all arts happen, and sometimes they are concurrent, and sometimes they aren't. But the time elements are not always that far apart.
In America, for example, the heroes that everyone had were movie stars and eventually some rock stars. Elvis, not withstanding, since his legacy is fame and money and not meaning, the others were all social rebels of a sort. Jimi, Janis, Jim, were no different than your Sylvia Plath's. But if you separate all these, and strictly by themselves, the majority of rock fans don't give a damn about Sylvia or the work she left behind, or her screams, which were no different than Janis! And then, someone is gonna come up and ask me about Iggy Pop! Same thing, and pretty much the punk version in New York, a vision of excesses gone crazy. Is it legitimate? Well, his getting famous, along with the brothers and other bands, the answer would be yes, but again, a similar band in San Diego, couldn't find any legitimacy anywhere else because no one in NY is gonna buy it.
I honestly feel that the question is too simplified, to get a good answer, and a college professor would probably nail that paper with a C or a D, for lack of continuity and completeness, and total oblivion to the rest of the world.
But it is a valid concern, and something that is difficult to discuss in a board that is only interested in rock music, and doesn't give a poop about anything else, because they never go to the movies or the opera or the museum, because they have been bought out by the Ring, the Potter, and Pepsi!
Now, with that in mind, where is the cultural legitimacy, specially when you are not important and no longer a part of the throng? And you think the media will help you, here? It dilutes the legitimacy, and leaves the top ten alone and a self-fullfilling prophecy, that convinces you that you are wrong and the masses (in this case numbers, not masses!) are telling you what is right, valid and important.
The scary part of the 60's that blows away a lot of people is that the scene happened, no one denies it anymore, and it made huge money for many people, which is no longer denied in the world of "greed is good", but the rest is kinda left behind, and ignored.
Only to be resurrected by you and I at PA! (I love that part!) ... And sadly, this thread dies out since it is not a top ten thread!
Edited by moshkito - July 06 2014 at 13:59 |
|
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com |
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123 |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
The cultural legitimacy of prog, metal and punk
Topic Options
Cactus Choir wrote: