~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Dec 7, 2020 20:54:01 GMT
Jackson Browne's music is as wholesome as a glass of homogenized milk. Some people think he smacked Daryl Hannah around. Hopefully he didn't but, if he did, it's a good thing he didn't write any songs about it. After Running On Empty who was listening? It could be in the lyrics. Running was the peak and end of his career, it seems.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 7, 2020 20:54:59 GMT
We all laud the freedom and rebellion aspect of rock and roll, don’t we? Isn’t part of all of that the ability to try on every possible human guise - regardless of how socially acceptable it is?
Someone brought up Ray Davies earlier. Maybe he gets points for songs like Lola or Out of the Wardrobe for being sympathetic to people who didn’t fit the gender norms of the day. But he also wrote Art Lover, whose protagonist is a bit less comfortable to cheer for, didn’t he?
The larger point is: He likely imagined himself being transgressive when he wrote all of those songs. He was poking at societal roles. The Stones did the same thing. They tried on sympathizing with the devil. That was the gig.
The overarching cultural message I took from The Stones (and rock and roll in general) wasn’t that all girls were stupid because Mick sang about a stupid girl. It was that all of these roles we are assigned by society are arbitrary and worthy of questioning.
It doesn’t matter whether there’s a tell in the lyrics of Backstreet Girl that lets you know that the guy is a jerk. The thing is: you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. That’s the crux of the whole “bad boy” thing, isn’t it?
|
|
~ / % ? *
god
disambiguating goat herder
Posts: 5,532
|
Post by ~ / % ? * on Dec 7, 2020 21:02:05 GMT
We all laud the freedom and rebellion aspect of rock and roll, don’t we? Isn’t part of all of that the ability to try on every possible human guise - regardless of how socially acceptable it is? Somehow brought up Ray Davies earlier. Maybe he gets points for songs like Lola or Out of the Wardrobe for being sympathetic to people who didn’t fit the gender norms of the day. But he also wrote Art Lover, who’s protagonist is a bit less comfortable to cheer for, didn’t he? The larger point is: He likely imagined himself being transgressive when he wrote all of those songs. He was poking at societal roles. The Stones did the same thing. They tried on sympathizing with the devil. That was the gig. The overarching cultural message I took from The Stones (and rock and roll in general) wasn’t that all girls were stupid because Mick sang about a stupid girl. It was that all of these roles we are assigned by society are arbitrary and worthy of questioning. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a tell in the lyrics of Backstreet Girl that lets you know that the guy is a jerk. The larger point is that you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. That’s the crux of the whole “bad boy” thing, isn’t it? NFW So Mick and the Dunderheads are really some arch dadaist wink wink, thanks for the heads up. I expected possibly this from skope with the help of monkeys and typewriters, not you.
|
|
|
Post by fonz on Dec 7, 2020 21:03:11 GMT
Bollocks to this. I want my rock stars to have a bit of mild misogyny about them. They aren’t my role models. They’re just entertainers, mainly from a different age. If I wanted Paul Simon I’d ask for Paul Simon. yikes, I assume you are kidding You aren't going to find a cooler "rock star" Hendrix and he wasn't a misogynist (though he did have issues with race and women). I’m only half-kidding. These are rock stars that we are talking about. I’m under no illusions that I’d want them hanging around with my sisters, or whatever. I don’t expect they’d “treat em right”. And that’s what my sisters would find appealing. They were bad boys. A bit naughty. Girls wanted to be with them, and blokes lived their fantasies through them. The exaggerated misogyny in the songs... it’s part of that. If people don’t want to listen the records anymore, well, that’s fine. But this stuff is fifty years old. Luckily, we’ve got Coldplay now. It’s a good time to be a music fan.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 7, 2020 21:11:35 GMT
We all laud the freedom and rebellion aspect of rock and roll, don’t we? Isn’t part of all of that the ability to try on every possible human guise - regardless of how socially acceptable it is? Somehow brought up Ray Davies earlier. Maybe he gets points for songs like Lola or Out of the Wardrobe for being sympathetic to people who didn’t fit the gender norms of the day. But he also wrote Art Lover, who’s protagonist is a bit less comfortable to cheer for, didn’t he? The larger point is: He likely imagined himself being transgressive when he wrote all of those songs. He was poking at societal roles. The Stones did the same thing. They tried on sympathizing with the devil. That was the gig. The overarching cultural message I took from The Stones (and rock and roll in general) wasn’t that all girls were stupid because Mick sang about a stupid girl. It was that all of these roles we are assigned by society are arbitrary and worthy of questioning. It doesn’t matter whether there’s a tell in the lyrics of Backstreet Girl that lets you know that the guy is a jerk. The larger point is that you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. That’s the crux of the whole “bad boy” thing, isn’t it? NFW So Mick and the Dunderheads are really some arch dadaist wink wink, thanks for the heads up. I expected possibly this from skope with the help of monkeys and typewriters, not you. I can’t even make sense of that reaction. I think The Stones (and really... most of their peers) saw themselves as liberated from most propriety. When they mocked the mother in Mother’s Little Helper it didn’t mean that they were anti-motherhood.
|
|
|
Post by *LORD 'X'* on Dec 7, 2020 21:21:26 GMT
The thing is: you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. How do you know?
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 7, 2020 21:24:40 GMT
The thing is: you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. How do you know? Because they told me to be be suspicious of the guy on the radio who told me how white my shirts could be.
|
|
|
Post by *LORD 'X'* on Dec 7, 2020 21:26:17 GMT
Oh, you copped out!
Shame.
|
|
|
Post by Reactionary Rage on Dec 7, 2020 21:29:37 GMT
The thing is: you’re listening to The Stones, and in their universe human relationships were ALWAYS more complex than meets the eye. You instinctively know that you have to be just as suspicious of the guy in Beast of Burden or Fool to Cry. They were ALWAYS untrustworthy narrators. How do you know? Oh come on you just know, John. Would you buy a user car off that?
|
|
|
Post by *LORD 'X'* on Dec 7, 2020 21:30:27 GMT
"that"
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 7, 2020 21:30:59 GMT
Okay... I’ll cop back in. What the hell? 😏
I honestly don’t get the question? How do I know that The Stones and most of their second-wave rocker peers were poking at societal norms?
It just seems pretty self-evident to me.
|
|
|
Post by *LORD 'X'* on Dec 7, 2020 21:32:35 GMT
I could get behind this 'they're only playing roles' malarkey if we were talking about great writers. We're not. We're talking about rock stars with a bunch of 'O' levels who screwed around.
|
|
|
Post by *LORD 'X'* on Dec 7, 2020 21:33:45 GMT
'write about what you know' - as Sneelock brought up earlier
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnc on Dec 7, 2020 21:37:37 GMT
Zep, Stones, Bowie, Lennon, Zappa, Neil - any major 60s/70s male stars who DIDN'T demonstrate misogyny on occasion? Maybe Plant did have a real lemon in his pocket and wanted a woman to guess how ripe it was.
|
|
|
Post by daveythefatboy on Dec 7, 2020 21:37:48 GMT
I could get behind this 'they're only playing roles' malarkey if we were talking about great writers. We're not. We're talking about rock stars with a bunch of 'O' levels who screwed around. I don’t think it is formal as all that. I’m not saying, ‘The Stones were always using the rhetorical device of the untrustworthy narrator’. I’m saying, ‘The Stones liked taking the piss out of society - and thus most of what they wrote carried the subtext that all of the roles humans play are kind of bullshit’.
|
|