Re: The Rule of Rock, Part 1

62.42.63.20

Posted by orejones on March 8, 2001 at 14:39:18

In Reply to: The Rule of Rock, Part 1 posted by Neward T on March 8, 2001 at 11:27:38:

When two people meet, and stay together for a while, sure they will find out some themes of mutual interest: maybe both like Faulkner, Mozart, are interested in cosmology, on good wines, bonsais, good cars, some aspects of science or philosophy,... Then, if they are three, what both the three can share and enjoy talking about will be somewhat restricted, as may be one of them is a teetotaler, or isnÂ´t interested in cosmology...; let them be four, and Faulkner, bonsais, or Mozart will be excluded... The rule is, that the number of common interest issues is inversely proportional to the number of people in the meeting: this is a well-known fact, repeatedly pointed by not few people along history.

And now we arrive to the crucial point: how many are we, when we are a multitude? And, especially when we come from so many different origins, as is the case, especially in the US, that melting pot of cultures? Uninformed optimists would think that we would all benefit from each otherÂ´s different points of view, and sure it would be so, if we were a dialoging culture; but our society is more competitive than dialoging, so instead of a synthesis, what we obtain, in the best of cases, is a kind of sincretism (some name that tolerance) and so few really shared interests...

Now itÂ´s easy to see that, no matter how cultivated we can be at individual level, as a bunch we end up talking about women, cars, football, dirty politicians, etc.

And, in what to music respects, itÂ´s what takes the least effort to follow what predominates: basic rithms, almost no elaboration, easy -and silly- tunes, poor text,... And, if you add to that the interest -vested or declared- of the people in the industry on making money as fast as they can, by selling to as many people as possible, and the not to be neglected power of propaganda (marketing, they say), then hereÂ´s some powerful reason for things being as they are.

I know all this is pretty obvious, but it puts so many things under a clearing perspective, that I couldnÂ´t avoid bringing it to this forum. Please forgive me if you find it boring.

Best regards

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - I think we're doomed! - Mike M. 17:22:32 03/07/01 (20)

Re: I think we're doomed! - Charlie_L 08:53:03 03/09/01 (0)

O mores! O tempores! - MikeJ 12:19:52 03/08/01 (0)

Re: I think we're doomed! - nobody 09:51:35 03/08/01 (1)

Re: I think we're doomed! - Mike M. 10:21:50 03/11/01 (0)

Here's Why - Neward T 18:30:05 03/07/01 (16)

Show me the barbarism - tunenut 16:13:08 03/08/01 (2)

Here's Your Barbarism - Neward T 16:30:48 03/08/01 (1)

Neward's Barbarism - chickenlogic 19:48:27 03/08/01 (0)

Pretty weird, Nerdward - jt 21:57:50 03/07/01 (5)

Re: Pretty weird, Nerdward - Firefli 12:06:58 03/08/01 (4)

Re: Pretty weird, Nerdward - Dr. T 15:43:40 03/08/01 (0)

Dead Or Alive - Neward T 14:19:18 03/08/01 (2)

I certainly agree there... - Firefli 16:30:56 03/08/01 (1)

Re: I certainly agree there... - chickenlogic 21:05:55 03/08/01 (0)

Casper Hauser - gd 19:07:16 03/07/01 (6)

The Rule of Rock, Part 2 - Neward T 12:12:54 03/08/01 (1)

Observations on recent verbal discourse & the 'Stance of Neward' - centurymantra 14:48:38 03/08/01 (0)

The Rule of Rock, Part 1 - Neward T 11:27:38 03/08/01 (1)

Re: The Rule of Rock, Part 1 - orejones 14:39:18 03/08/01 (0)

The old saw, Madison Avenue - Randy Bey 07:57:29 03/08/01 (0)

Follow Ups

Re: The Rule of Rock, Part 1 - orejones 14:39:18 03/08/01 (0)

You can not post to an archived thread.