The decline of rock music

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
This is true for mostly everything though, and it's only going worse with time.
Money didn't only corrupt music - it corrupted science, work, food, love, life itself.

Capitalism is always after new markets, and it will never stop until everything and anything can be bought.
You can already buy babies online, people called me crazy when I said this would be possible at some point.
My next prediction is organs - like you point at some guy, check that he has a good healthy liver or whatever else you need, and you get it transplanted into you.
I have seen some people talking openly and seriously about it already, so it's only a matter of time.

And since apparently everybody abandoned the idea of getting rid of the people pushing this my only hope is that this civilization crumbles before it happens.
But that won't stop it, china is ready to replace us and continue with the program, no worries.

The primacy of money is a lower manifestation of the primacy of quantity and measurement, which is the product of the very materialism you subscribe to (perhaps subscribe is not the right word, as that involves agency, and I think in your case it's almost at an unconscious level, but I have no interest in psychology).

In any case there is no sense in rejecting the rotten fruit without rejecting the tree that bears it.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Subscribe is definitely not the right word, in french anyway, since it would imply that I actively refuse to see anything but the material, and that I wallow in ever increasing my material possessions.

Regarding the first point it seems to me more that I'm looking for something I cannot seem to find, and thus that the only rational conclusion for the moment is that it does not exist - I never said I would not reconsider if I finally find anything, it's just that for the moment I don't.

Regarding the second point I just don't give a fuck honestly. I could drive a ferrari if I wanted to, well I don't.
I don't believe anything you can buy can give you happiness, and in the end this is what I'm after, for myself too of course but first and foremost for the ones I love - even though here too the universe is not that supportive. C'est la vie :)
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Subscribe is definitely not the right word, in french anyway, since it would imply that I actively refuse to see anything but the material, and that I wallow in ever increasing my material possessions.

Regarding the first point it seems to me more that I'm looking for something I cannot seem to find, and thus that the only rational conclusion for the moment is that it does not exist - I never said I would not reconsider if I finally find anything, it's just that for the moment I don't.

Regarding the second point I just don't give a fuck honestly. I could drive a ferrari if I wanted to, well I don't.
I don't believe anything you can buy can give you happiness, and in the end this is what I'm after, for myself too of course but first and foremost for the ones I love - even though here too the universe is not that supportive. C'est la vie :)

You are taking the word 'materialism' in its most general, and least explanatory, form: attachment to material riches, wealth. While this is a sort of result of it, it is not what I mean when I use the term. I mean it in the sense of primacy of matter over spirit, or substance over essence - which begins as an inversion of order (putting essence subject to substance, instead of the natural other way around), but develops (or developed) into the negation of the higher itself - of spirit and essence themselves - either as non-existent or unknowable.

Happiness is an even vaguer word, unless it is understood in the purely material sense, but you already indicated you do not understand it this way. So what is this happiness you seek for you and yours? If it is not found in material riches, then where is it found?

You cannot seem to find it for two very simple reasons: you are looking in the wrong place and with the wrong tool. That is, reason and below reason (infrahuman, or the 'subconscious'), instead of the nous (the soul, the heart) which is above reason (superhuman, transcendent). This is where a Spiritual Father comes in handy as the journey without it is not only longer but more dangerous, but it's very difficult to find nowadays - since you are in France, perhaps inquire into traditional Catholic churches, you might get lucky.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I accept the bolded parts as valid criticisms, or rather clarifications on what I said. As for the rest, you have misunderstood what I wrote.

If it brings any clarification, I wrote I presume also that you mistakenly view Catholic dogma as some sort of product of theologians "rationalism" because you had written earlier about the already latent rationalism and dualism, of the Roman Church and the Western sages (Aquinas, especially).

The last part is the worst one, not because you misunderstood me, but because it misunderstands what a traditional society is, and specifically how it is. The mere pages of illuminated manuscripts from the middle ages proves this a falsehood. Both the sacred and the profane are present - this is unavoidable. The difference between the modern mode and the traditional mode is the place that the sacred and the profane are thought to be. In traditional societies, the sacred stands above and at center, whereas the profane is below and on the margin. And in modern civilization it is the exact opposite, an inversion.

I wouldn't see much to comment or disagree with, in what you wrote above or in the linked post, were it not for the sentence I put in bold, which triggers me and strikes me as so completely wrong, and puts all the rest of what you write in a rather unfavourable light.

First of all, to clear a likely misunderstanding, what you're probably alluding to with your illuminated manuscripts is texts in which the distinction of sacred and profane is taken for granted, as a given, as an habitual fact of life. I never questioned that, I never denied that it's been around with us for a very long time. Like those authors, I am no utopian and do not plan on annihilating the profane aspect of life, any more than I plan on annihilating sin, war, or avalanches.

Now, you are completely wrong if you believe that the goal of Christianity (be it for society or the individual) is "a harmonious combination" of sacred above and profane below. This is as false as saying that the goal of Christianity is a "harmonious combination" of heaven above and hell below, or of holiness above and sin below.

It is true that the Militant Church is made of sinners, but this is for a time (this ephemerous valley of tears' time) only. In Paradise, there can be (and is) a harmonious combination of God above and man below, because God and man are both positive realities that can be combined, but there cannot be a "combination" of sacred and profane because profane is a wholly negative concept - what is a profane thing? It's a thing that has the defect of not being sacred.

Far for being a universal cosmic reality, the sacred/profane distinction is culturally dtermined in space and time, for example the ancient Mosaic sacrifices were sacred before the time of Christ but are not sacred to Christians today.
 
Last edited:

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
This is true for mostly everything though, and it's only going worse with time.
Money didn't only corrupt music - it corrupted science, work, food, love, life itself.

Capitalism is always after new markets, and it will never stop until everything and anything can be bought.
You can already buy babies online, people called me crazy when I said this would be possible at some point.
My next prediction is organs - like you point at some guy, check that he has a good healthy liver or whatever else you need, and you get it transplanted into you.
I have seen some people talking openly and seriously about it already, so it's only a matter of time.

And since apparently everybody abandoned the idea of getting rid of the people pushing this my only hope is that this civilization crumbles before it happens.
But that won't stop it, china is ready to replace us and continue with the program, no worries.

However much it disgusts me, I cannot but agree 100% with you. So sad ...
Another item in the same category : in Islam there's an hadith saying "At the End times towards the end of the world, there will be slave mothers giving birth to their slave-master (or mistress)"

The interpretation of it I heard from a Muslim scholar is that soon the ruling class will only practice sex in a recreational, non-procreative form, while the more painful part of child-bearing will be left to slaves ; experts will make an eugenistic "selection" among the babies, and once a child has been marked as destined to become a member of the elite, he will rule his own mother just like any other slave.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
If it brings any clarification, I wrote I presume also that you mistakenly view Catholic dogma as some sort of product of theologians "rationalism" because you had written earlier about the already latent rationalism and dualism, of the Roman Church and the Western sages (Aquinas, especially).



I wouldn't see much to comment or disagree with, in what you wrote above or in the linked post, were it not for the sentence I put in bold, which triggers me and strikes me as so completely wrong, and puts all the rest of what you write in a rather unfavourable light.

First of all, to clear a likely misunderstanding, what you're probably alluding to with your illuminated manuscripts is texts in which the distinction of sacred and profane is taken for granted, as a given, as an habitual fact of life. I never questioned that, I never denied that it's been around with us for a very long time. Like those authors, I am no utopian and do not plan on annihilating the profane aspect of life, any more than I plan on annihilating sin, war, or avalanches.

Now, you are completely wrong if you believe that the goal of Christianity (be it for society or the individual) is "a harmonious combination" of sacred above and profane below. This is as false as saying that the goal of Christianity is a "harmonious combination" of heaven above and hell below, or of holiness above and sin below.

It is true that the Militant Church is made of sinners, but this is for a time (this ephemerous valley of tears' time) only. In Paradise, there can be (and is) a harmonious combination of God above and man below, because God and man are both positive realities that can be combined, but there cannot be a "combination" of sacred and profane because profane is a wholly negative concept - what is a profane thing? It's a thing that has the defect of not being sacred.

Far for being a universal cosmic reality, the sacred/profane distinction is culturally dtermined in space and time, for example the ancient Mosaic sacrifices were sacred before the time of Christ but are not sacred to Christians today.

I think you have a problem with the word profane. I can understand that, but I would have to point out that it is itself a modern application of the word, not its traditional use.

That use for profane has been substituted for the word 'secular' but I find that much worse, as it doesn't really reflect the nature of the thing itself, because it is not of one century (secculum, meaning, from a certain time only) but a distinction which exists in the very nature of reality - that between what is sacred and what is not sacred (but nonetheless, not anti-sacred). The use of that word as a verb to mean 'desecrate' is already a product of modernity (specifically of puritanism). This is why in Catholic countries there are still multiple festivals and traditions (and used to be more of course) which are not Christian themselves (they are profane) but they are not against the sacred (they are sanctioned by the Church itself, which worked almost single handedly to keep them, in fact).

The etymology is interesting and revealing (as usual) - profane: from the phrase pro fano, literally "out in front of the temple" (here perhaps with a sense of "not admitted into the temple (with the initiates)," from pro "before" (from PIE root *per- (1) "forward," hence "in front of, before") + fano, ablative of fanum "temple" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). The sense of "irreverent toward God or holy things" is from 1550s.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
I think you have a problem with the word profane
I plead non-guilty to that with the explanations below, I think the core of our disagreement lies elsewhere.
what is not sacred (but nonetheless, not anti-sacred)
To clarify any misunderstanding, this is indeed what the adjective "profane" has always meant to me including in my recent posts. I maintain all of my preceding criticisms with that clarification added.

The use of that word as a verb to mean 'desecrate' is already a product of modernity (specifically of puritanism).
In French also, the new "desecration" sense only belongs to the verb profaner or its derivative profanation, I have never heard or read the profane adjective used except in the neutral sense.
The English profanity has no equivalent in French or other Romance languages as far as I know (because of its strictly local Puritan origin, I guess).

in Catholic countries there are still multiple festivals and traditions (and used to be more of course) which are not Christian themselves (they are profane) but they are not against the sacred (they are sanctioned by the Church itself, which worked almost single handedly to keep them, in fact).

Indeed, and I have some inside knowledge of some of them in my own region, and astrology might be added to the list (some people mistakenly think it's been condemned by the Church).

But to hammer my point, let me point out on how different this is from what you were speaking at first and which I criticized. What you're speaking of now is the happiest situation, where society is "in full bloom" and unimpeded by the frequent limiting or hostile factors, and there is a harmonious polyphony of traditions from different origins. In less favorable conditions, there's just the (often persecuted) minimalist, basic form of the religion surrounded by hostile elements.

This has nothing to do with the above/below symbolism or an alleged "unavoidable, universal distinction between sacred and profane".

Despite all those criticisms, I still upvoted your post because of the etymology.
 
Last edited:

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
I plead non-guilty to that with the explanations below, I think the core of our disagreement lies elsewhere.

To clarify any misunderstanding, this is indeed what the adjective "profane" has always meant to me including in my recent posts. I maintain all of my preceding criticisms with that clarification added.


In French also, the new "desecration" sense only belongs to the verb profaner or its derivative profanation, I have never heard or read the profane adjective used except in the neutral sense.
The English profanity has no equivalent in French or other Romance languages as far as I know (because of its strictly local Puritan origin, I guess).



Indeed, and I have some inside knowledge of some of them in my own region, and astrology might be added to the list (some people mistakenly think it's been condemned by the Church).

But to hammer my point, let me point out on how different this is from what you were speaking at first and which I criticized. What you're speaking of now is the happiest situation, where society is "in full bloom" and unimpeded by the frequent limiting or hostile factors, and there is a harmonious polyphony of traditions from different origins. In less favorable conditions, there's just the (often persecuted) minimalist, basic form of the religion surrounded by hostile elements.

This has nothing to do with above/below symbolism or an alleged "unavoidable, universal distinction between sacred and profane".

Despite all those criticisms, I still upvoted your post because of the etymology.

The bolded part, I agree, nothing to do with this conception. Although obviously we disagree as to why it has nothing to do with it.

This is why I think it: our current world is neither sacred nor profane - for profane implies the very existence of the sacred, from which it is distinguished - without the sacred, there is no profane, as there is no temple (fanum) to be out of (pro). In its original meaning the profane is, in other words, a lower manifestation of the sacred, and always subjugated to it. What we have now, however, is neither - it is inversion, opposition to the sacred - the antichrist.

Or in other words still 'Thy Will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven' - earth being the profane, dependent on the sacred from Heaven.

Hell, however, is the inversion of the sacred, not a lower order of it.
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Happiness is an even vaguer word, unless it is understood in the purely material sense, but you already indicated you do not understand it this way. So what is this happiness you seek for you and yours? If it is not found in material riches, then where is it found?
Questions like this are why I still participate in these discussions.
I've never asked myself that.
I thought about it for a couple of hours and could find nothing, well not much anyway.

I mean ok I could give you some examples, sure, but they don't really make me happy, or at least it is a very fleeting feeling only.
If I'm honest I think I have given up on ever being happy a long time ago, when I was 7 or 8.
Maybe I will write about it someday, when I'm ready I suppose.
Or most probably I won't because who cares anyway :)

I do know how to make my loved ones happy, maybe simply because they know themselves what makes them happy ? Or because most people are so easy to read anyway.
I don't know. I'll keep thinking about it.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Questions like this are why I still participate in these discussions.
I've never asked myself that.
I thought about it for a couple of hours and could find nothing, well not much anyway.

I mean ok I could give you some examples, sure, but they don't really make me happy, or at least it is a very fleeting feeling only.
If I'm honest I think I have given up on ever being happy a long time ago, when I was 7 or 8.
Maybe I will write about it someday, when I'm ready I suppose.
Or most probably I won't because who cares anyway :)

I do know how to make my loved ones happy, maybe simply because they know themselves what makes them happy ? Or because most people are so easy to read anyway.
I don't know. I'll keep thinking about it.

How can you give up on something that you cannot define? How do you even know if you gave it up?

If you want to share, I am open to read it. Though perhaps in another thread - we've probably derailed this one too much already.

Here's an idea: derailment thread (for when replies go too deep or too sideways).
 

Oberrheiner

Pelican
Come on, you know what I mean :)
How course I know what it is to be happy, at least empirically - I just never found a way to get there consistently.

And when you asked I realized it was never really a priority for me - I was satisfied with just being alive, and able to go forward.
A bit like finding a meaning I suppose .. I know so many people who are not with us anymore, I'm here and I should complain that my life has no meaning ?
What should they say ?
 

ilostabet

Pelican
Orthodox Inquirer
Come on, you know what I mean :)
How course I know what it is to be happy, at least empirically - I just never found a way to get there consistently.

And when you asked I realized it was never really a priority for me - I was satisfied with just being alive, and able to go forward.
A bit like finding a meaning I suppose .. I know so many people who are not with us anymore, I'm here and I should complain that my life has no meaning ?
What should they say ?

They certainly understand the higher meaning now, one way or another.

As to happiness, you said yourself you don't know what it is - and if it isn't material, you can't really know it empirically (in the strictest sense). If it is only pleasure, then sure, it can be known empirically. But I don't think that's what you mean.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
Come on, you know what I mean :)
How course I know what it is to be happy, at least empirically - I just never found a way to get there consistently.

And when you asked I realized it was never really a priority for me - I was satisfied with just being alive, and able to go forward.

Good for you - the quest for happiness is the biggest obstacle to happiness as H. Makow says.
"Happiness" as we mean it today is not a Christian notion anyway. The correct Christian notion is following one's calling and the universal order set by God.
Today, "happiness" is something not unlike the Minimal Basic Income in Socialist societies - it is determined by market forces, and above all it is individualistic and therefore comparative. I consider myself "happy" when it seems I have roughly the same piece of the pie as my neighbors.

Gore Vidal said that a perfect society would have to invent a mechanism by which everyone thought himself or herself better off than the others.
 

alchemical

Sparrow
No longer checking to see what's the latest in western music that much; but rare gems do come out:

Radiohead "Spectre"
.
.
.
J-rock is where it's at--very much alive and still kicking it, always experimenting with different styles:
.
(ambient/hardcore)


(oldie but goodie alternative punk)

.
.
.
note: spectre was originally the title track for the james bond movie of the same name until execs opted instead for the lame 'writing on the wall' by sam whatever
 
Last edited:

Mountaineer

Ostrich
Gold Member
I just want to post this here. It's one of the best obscure albums I managed to find.


I Voted For Nader

Poignantly phrased to shift the burden of the blame.
Sick and tired, but you keep on marching in the same old parade.
Accuse, construe; dare I even venture abuse?
Frustrations channeled through the paths worn well with use.

Binary politics, packaged sound bite rhetoric;
And you think it makes no difference?
Watered down party lines, beholden to corporate ties;
And you still inquire why?

Maybe you can tell me when my vote was decided for me?
I guess the enemy of the enemy is still the fucking enemy.

And one more time around the played our reasons why:
"jack knife the diesel to let the bicycle pass on by".
Reproaching failed attempts at restoring representative government.
This poli-earthquake is long over due.

Plastic smiles and candy lies,
Prestige build on family ties;
And you find it so offensive.
Dirty mouths and muddied hands,
Promises written in sand;
Still every election you comply?

Maybe you can tell me when my vote was decided for me?
I guess the enemy of the enemy is still the fucking enemy.

A pointed finger, a furrowed brow -
Relying on the way's its been to get us through the now.
A waning courage, just play it safe.
Well this is where safe's landed us: the problems of today.
Reach out a broken hand;
You have the right to make demands.
REACH OUT A BROKEN HAND;
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE DEMANDS!

Maybe you can tell me when my vote was decided for me?
I guess the enemy of the enemy is still the fucking enemy.

Homeland Insecurities

Box cutter paranoia leads to meatpacking freedom - nice and clean.
Selling out our civil liberties in exchange for illusion, deception.
No peace
Without
A cop posted on every corner.
So please, relax.
We've got you on our screen.
You're safe and sound.

You'd think by now we'd comprehend.
You'd think the means would fit the end.
All in all, all is lost.
You'd think by now reason would dawn.
You'd think the poison would be drawn.
All in all, all is lost.

Box cutter paranoia leads to trading our privacy for peace.
Sold out our civil liberties in return for delusions, confusion.
No peace
Without
A phone tap for all the dissenters.
So please, chill out.
We've got you in our system.
You're safe and sound.

You'd think by now we'd comprehend.
You'd think the means would fit the end.
All in all, all is lost.
You'd think by now reason would dawn.
You'd think the poison would be drawn.
All in all, all is...

Lost when we abandon
Common sense in lieu of panic.
So afraid to live with the fear
That we'll burn the bridge on which we're standing,
To kill the fear of it ever falling down.
There's a loaded canon and the barrel's to the temple.

You'd think by now we'd comprehend.
You'd think the means would fit the end.
All in all, all is lost.
You'd think by now reason would dawn.
You'd think the poison would be drawn.
All in all, all is lost.
 
Roxy Music/Bryan Ferry was pretty sharp, white rock music. But, query, was Ferry doing a "100% straight, but appealing to fags in order to get somewhere in the music industry" thing? Otherwise, what's with all this glamour-queen preening with his mouth?

 
Rock music was always a business. Only delusional pathetic hippies and other countercultural types think it was about rebelling against the man. It was pre-packaged and carefully selected since day one.


There was a lot of good music being produced, regardless of the message the bands had. Generally, there were musical standards until punk rock became mainstream. I always hated people like Bob Dylan who had limited musical talent and their lyrics were overrated junkie babbling or the Rolling Stones, which had some cool songs but are overrated fake bad boys (Brian Jones was the only really talented member). Never got into the Sex Pistols or Nirvana. Too sloppy and mediocre. Always liked my music with some degree of quality, instrumental and vocal wise. Never cared too much about lyrics,


Also, a lot of overrated acts from the 60s and 70s kept being shoved down out throats just because they were friends with Jann Werner, founder of the R&R hall of fame and leftist Rolling Stone magazine. Even that weird obsession with the Beatles (i'm a fan but to think they can do no wrong is plain ridiculous) and especially John Lennon, which is still promoted as the boomer Jesus who sacrificed for "world peace" it's because Werner is friends with Yoko Ono since the early 70s. Yes, payola and cronyism never went away in rock music.


But in the other hand, at the same time Zionist Zimmerman was whining away, you had talented people like the Beatles , Moody Blues, Yardbirds, Kinks, Small Faces, surf and semipro garage bands, and even the soul singers from Motown and Stax in the early to mid 60s producing great, timeless music.

People think Dylan, Joan Baez and some other leftist folk singers were the only ones from the sixties folk scene, but the scene was bigger and had much more talented people than those two. One of the great advantages of internet is that we caen discover good old rock music that wasn't big or was only known locally on certain countries or regions. There were a lot of bands and artists who never made it big internationally but were much more talented than a lot of overrated "big" bands.


A lot of rock fans are lazy and just wanna hear the same old tired songs in their so called classic rock stations. I think that's one of the reasons of rock music's decline. In the other had, i pretty much agree with other posters, that rock lost it's balls in the 90s, Kurt Cobain was a huge overrated woke soyboy who was promoted as a messiah for social justice when he died, while the remaining, more talented and more masculine grunge bands got kinda of ignored. They also sang about depression but in a way more relatable way to your average Joe. Also, most British rock since the 90s has also been devoid of any balls. Don't get me started on how much i despise Radiohead, for me they're the ultimate soyboy band.
 
Top