From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 25 2005 - 15:19:51 GMT
Ham,
This is in response to the more critical responses you made. I've separated
these out from you "me glorious me" comments in the original, to which I
respond to in "Punk & Ham's Superiority".
> That said, I don't think you can deny the dissidence that characterizes much
of today's art, literature, and music.
No, I can't. And I never tried to. What I am bringing critical lens to is that
this dissidence is somehow an inherent feature of "rock", and only "rock".
For example, Ian (I believe, or was it Dan) asked Platt to listen to a song by
Pink Flyod that Ian (or Dan) believed to have high artistic Quality. Platt
replied that if it "had the rock beat, it was degenerate". Period.
As I said, many times, there are songs I find disgusting out there. And many I
find disturbing. And many you could get to me admit I find nihilistic. Some are
rock. Some are jazz. Some classical. Some country. But each "song" I judge for
myself. And I would never purport to say that a song that has "low quality" for
me, must then be "low quality" period. Nor that because one (or many)
"country-western" songs are digusting to me, that the entire genre, in toto, is
"degenerate". Hell, I find some of Toby Keith's Kick-Islamic-Ass songs
personally digusting, and yet I like several of his other songs ("I Love This
Bar", for example). Yet these same Kick-Islamic-Ass songs produce a "high
quality" response in someone with a different unique personal history than
mine. Perhaps they were somewhat "healing" to people who lost family in 9/11,
or have loved ones stationed abroad. Who am I to say?
To make blanket generalizations, however, about "rock" or "punk", and to try to
ascribe a feature such as "believing in nothing", or "promotes promiscuity"
universally to the genre is what I find idiotic.
You are now evidencing a somewhat different position, as you are indicating that
this "degeneracy" can be found across musical genres and across various "art"
media. I acknowledge this, and so long as this stays part of the centrality of
your thesis, we can move on in the conversation.
With the caveat, which you can answer for clarity, that "all rock" by virtue of
being classified as "rock" is ipso facto "degenerate". If you continue to wish
to make this part of your thesis, then I will need you to clarify the specific
elements that make it so, despite the broad range of lyrics, beat and appeal of
"rock".
> For one thing, there's a significant difference in the kind of message being
sent in our postmodern era. It can't be compared to the troubador songs or
folk music of past ages; has more in common with the Marxist slogan "Workers
Unite!".
> and our preponderantly liberal universities actively help to promote it.
I feel a little "baited" here. But I'll bite. What is wrong with a "worker's
unite!" message? Are you against labor having a voice? Are you suggesting that
capitalism is such an unquestionable GOOD, that disenfranchised workers should
roll over and take whatever they are dished? Or are you simply suggesting that
they shouldn't "sing about it"?
Much of "punk", and "rock", is indeed concerned with labor alienation, unfair
treatment, exploitation and class stratification. Why is it immoral to voice
this? Is it because "Marx" said it, and we can't have anything he said in the
public discourse?
I'm not picking a "capitalist/marxist" fight here. God knows, Platt and I have
been down that road repeatedly. But I find it disconcerting that even the
expression of labor rights, or worker unification, is used as evidence of a
"problem" in art.
I find this pretty emblematic of the reifying purpose you ascribe to music. That
is, it should never be used to challenge or foster rebellion against normative
social practices.
And you're little jibe "liberal universities" really moves this whole critical
discussion into a new area.
Up until now, you and Platt have used the "Big 3" in your warcries against
"rock": (1) sexual content, (2) promotes promiscuity, and (3) the "beat of
sexual intercourse".
Everything in the dialogue has been thus under the umbrella of "sex". Here,
however, you bring political discord and disharmony to bear.
Now, "degenerate" music becomes music that fosters social discontent through
giving a voice to labor alienation, disenfranchised peoples, and those bearing
the weight of class stratification in this country. "Liberalism" does indeed
historically align with these positions.
We are down to a new "kernal": Music that supports liberal ideology is
degenerate. Music should promote conservative ideology.
> I'm saying it's not music's purpose to challenge authority and incite
> violence.
Is it the "purpose" of literature? Art? If not, what would be permissable to
challenge authority?
The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" was written to make youth aware of
the racial profiteering that was going on in 70's England. If they had written
a book about it instead, would that be okay?
Furthermore, and this gets back to the "ego" thing: Who makes the determination
as to what "purpose" music should have. Seems to me it has many, and should
have many. Is that because I lack your "learnedness"?
> The consequence is that we are fostering a "deconstructive" social culture
that, combined with the ideology of "political correctness", is lowering our
academic standards and encouraging a kind of irresponsible behavior that has no
esthetic values or moral structure.
You make a leap here (and I didn't copy all your text) that I'm not sure about.
You say that "already disenfranchised" youth are suseptable to the marketed
anti-establishment message of "rock". To this, if I read you correctly, I fully
agree. People seek art to provide expression to the particular situation.
If so, we may have some agreement in looking beyond musical instantiations of
what we personally find "degenerate" to larger socio-economic, or
socio-political, or even socio-communal trends that are fostering the
"disenfranchisement", alienation or nihilistic attitudes of "the masses".
For example, with "sex", to me, the underlying "problem" is a lack of
appropriate and meaningful dialogue between parents and children (or elders and
children) towards sex. In the majority of cases, children are either left
completely unspoken to, or are drilled with unrealistic repressive "sex is
evil" talk. Children should learn, in my opinion, that sex is healthy and fun,
but that it should also be approached respectfully, and not used to achieve
"love" or "ego needs". And they should be made aware of the emotional and
physical dangers of misuse. But they should also be given the ability to look
forward to sex as fun and immensely positive.
In short, a healthy and honest relationship and dialogue between parents and
children, and an active involvement in each other's lives and a fostering of
"hearth" in the home (family co-activity or community) would alleviate A LOT of
the so-called "degeneracies" you complain of.
When I "complain" about the state of things, then, I forgo talking about "rock
songs", and focus on "familial co-activity and involvement".
> In fact, it's what Allan Bloom, Platt Holden and I understand as Nihilism.
The mistake that Bloom, and you and Platt, make is to (1) attack a symptom, (2)
make indefensible generalizations, and (3) use your own egos to define "what is
Good" for everyone. If we can get past these three things, like I said, the
conversation could move on.
As Ian, Dan, Erin and myself (if I can be so bold as to presume to speak for
them) have been stating is that much "rock" can be socially affirmative and
healthy. Indeed, I further argue that much "rock" that is socially and
political challenging can also be high Quality, and also that much "rock" that
is simply "fun" (sexual or otherwise) can also be high Quality.
> I like Martina McBride, also, and she sings love songs. Look, I'm not
> sentencing or condemning here. But you know what media are working to
> destroy our culture as opposed to uplifting it.
No "culture" has the moral right to continue "just because it exists". Music or
art that combines an intellectually driven critique, challenge, and rallying
cry against oppression, alienation, repression, and other malevolent static
patterns is perfectly moral and non-degenerate in my view.
> Resentment of traditional values leads to nihilism. Nihilism causes the
> regression of society. Listening to and studying the classics leads to a
greater appreciation of music.
A brilliant Platteral dichotomy. Do you not see any other option between
"traditional values" and "nihilism"?
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 25 2005 - 15:23:14 GMT