 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
74.140.141.202
In Reply to: WOW love your inverted snobbery posted by dave c on March 22, 2007 at 05:14:07:
Often when working class people dare to have opinions on class issues we're accused of reverse snobbery and "class warfare". I'll tell you something, our versions have done alot less damage to the world than real snobbery and class warfare as practiced by the wealthy."You are arguing which was more working class?"
I'm arguing more who was the honest rock and roller and who was the stuck up would be artist. And which appealed more to phonies and tastemakers. I think Lennon was a jerk with wide appeal to other jerks.
"Meaningless"
Yes, enough to stimulate your efforts.
Follow Ups:
So what?
We were talking about a couple of musicians.
I suggest you get over whatever it may be that was in your background that you are still carrying around.
Working class credentials?
You sound like some of the university socialists I used to meet who thought solidarity was moving to Hackney.
Keep it about the music, mate.
Pretentious? It's Macca who has written the "oratorios".
If that is the sort of thing that might qualify him.
It's Macca who wrote Give Ireland Back To The Irish.
Whereas Lennon wrote songs like Imagine... while buying up a building facing Central Park.
You can pick holes in any musician's politics, but so what?
They are not the ones wiping unions from our societies or dropping bombs.
Stop the 60s' fascination with songwriters as leaders and philosophers.
It's old hat and it didn't work.
My personal problem is when I see people going ballistic over someone bashing their favorite music artists. As if such artists ought never be criticized.
I'm not a big fan of either, never was really.
I assume you are talking about the original posting then.
I wonder what a search of the word 'overplaying' might yield on this forum.
"I think .... was a jerk with wide appeal to other jerks."It's interesting you make this comment, for I think your political opposition thinks this is the biggest problem today.
While I wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment, in seeing some of your political comments from the past, I think the root of our disagreements is that where you think those you support are populists and reformers, I think those you support are elitists selling themselves as populists and reformers.
The depressing part is in recent time, there have been more and more people on the other side of the wall doing the exact same thing.
A wealthy person who feels like he/she's obligated to shape social policy is an "elitist." Basically someone who claims to be for the lower and working class, but as you said, never really lived in the part in real life. An elitist uses his wealth to pander to the poor, often creating a sense of **dependence** (whether real or perceived) amongst the poor for their services.One who's wealthy is just that. He has more $$$, but otherwise tries to live his life without bothering anyone. Provided he's not also an elitist.
I've personally had a problem with anyone resenting the wealthy in a general sense. For being wealthy in itself isn't a crime. (If one cannot stand the disparity, there are alternative nations where things are made equal, amongst the masses.)
I think the biggest problem on the planet is the masses mistaking elitists for populists and/or reformers.
You are correct, in this context, that Lennon had more of an "elitist" attitude than McCartney. But I also think Lennon had the musical genius that McCartney didn't have. But then again, I think Lennon, when his attitude became elitist, compromised his musical genius in the name of political activism. (I have a similar opinion of the Dixie Chicks.) And for me, it was a big turn-off.
new album is not so much political as it is a statement of independence in the face of adversity.
Interesting post Todd and well taken.I've known wealthy people that were regular guys, I've nothing against wealth per se and could use more of it myself.
I see it completely opposite. Paul is a cheap ass. John, on the other hand, was very benevolent.John may have had more demons - womanizing, drunken tirades, etc. Paul was probably a better family man, but when it comes down to it, John was the thinker, taking on social issues. If that makes him an elitist and "Beat Generation Wanna Be", I guess I aspire to that - definitely more than Paul's feel good - don't worry, be happy approach.
I've always had a soft spot for Paul after Wings and letting Linda be part of the band. That was sweet.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
