Amory (steven) Blaine (requiem4solace) wrote in cheeky_bastards,
Amory (steven) Blaine
requiem4solace
cheeky_bastards

  • Mood:
  • Music:

my first post here is a monster.

i rarely do this, in fact i think i only have once in the whole time of this journal, but i'm going to talk about something that happened in my day. I was trying to kill time, like an hour and a half's worth of time, so i started reading some music magazines: filter, AP, and there was one more with My chemical romance on the cover that i can't recall the name of. anyways, it's not too important. what is important is how angry these readings made me. here's one aspect of it; the writters for these three publications seem to know nothing of the history of any of the genre's expect for the history of "punk" and then it's only as shallow as what watching SLC Punks would teach you. the bands are no better with knowing their own genre's history, aside from the blood brothers, who actually knew that "emo" now is equatible to "shit" and it didn't used to be that way... but his was before chris carraba and conor oberst came and ruined it, turning it into self-loathing bullshit with no aims further or deeper than getting into scene girls' short frillie skirts. to prove this musical illiteracy, i don't feel like i need to look to the phrase "taking back sunday's brutal vocals..." what the fuck?!!?!? i wanted to kill everyone in sight when i first read the phrase. taking back sunday and "brutal" should never be in the same paragraph. and what's worse, My Chemical Romance was praised for their technical drum work and dark atributes. I thought i was going to die on sight. now, i understand that this is a magazine for "marketible" indie rock, a phrase that i can't say without a think layer of sarcasm, but still, i could name a slew of musicians that are easily more tallented than MCR. Though i'm not a fan of the route that the new blood brothers' cd took, i am glad that they know their shit; however, AP's subtitle of the interview is "is hardcore dead?" what the fuck? are the blood brothers the capstone of hardcore? i can't believe that these "writters" can consider themselves music savvy. There are INDIVIDUALS who have more impact on hardcore than the blood brothers. i'm not saying they are bad or anything close to that. but aren't they simple re-doing what The Refused did five years ago, but with twin vocals? But this is not a post about the blood brothers. What made me livid was when i read Filter... there was a five page review of the new interpol cd, and not until the LAST paragraph was music mentioned. The EXACT SAME THING happened in another main review. The interviewer once again tried to recreate such a travisty of musical writting with Bjork, but since i'm in love with her, i'll give her credit for at least trying to keep on the subject of her music instead of following his questions' leads into her fashion. If i were to read these three peices of musical debochary, i would think there was no hope for underground music, expect for worshiping the ramons and listening to the new green day album. thank god i'm not that innept, but it makes me wonder about the future sincerity of underground music. won't we finally get sick of the lack of it?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Comments allowed for members only

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic
  • 1 comment
some things :

the reason that magazine didn't have any real information on the history of punk rock is because the people who read those magazines aren't interested in what punk rock really was, it's for people who are interested in wearing the studded belt that popular culture has appropriated and feeling cool while they smoke cigarettes behind the gym of their high-school. ouch.

the fact of the matter is, the media in our society is moving faster than at any other time in the history of human civilization- there is more information to be consumed by the consumer regime, and because of this, things get burned out and sucked up and puked back at the consuming american media five
times as fast.

in due course, this significantly lowers the ammount of social movements allowed to develope and flourish in our culture, because more and more things get eaten up by t.v. and magazines.