Questions for Rockists:

[Thorngrub]

Now see, (if he'd only said that in the first place;)b

[Galactus]

pauledwardwagemann said:

I'll admit to some degree, I'm playing the devils advocate and exagerating the points. But in general I find major labels to distract musicians from a musicians ture purpose--which is making music (not making money)...

But see this a flawed logic to begin with. Musicians DO want to make money, very few of them are doing it purely for arts sake and if they are you've probably only heard of them if they live in your town. From the very first gig you get a couple bucks for your art is tainted and it's only varing degrees from there up.

[Thorngrub]

So you DO agree with wageman's assertion? Or you don't? That last post Mantis. . . didn't add up for me. For instance I don't know what you mean by "From the very first gig you get a couple bucks for your art is tainted and it's only varing degrees from there up. " - Come again?

[Thorngrub]

THat sounds like to me as if you're saying most musicians are in it for the money, and that "it only gets worse" after their first gig (or label deal). Maybe I missed something. . .

[pauledwardwagemann]

maybe I'm a dolt, but I truly have to believe that the great ones are doing it for the love of music and the love of communicating something from inside, and not just for the money...I'm talking about your Neil Youngs, your Led Zeppelins, your Pavements, etc...

[Thorngrub]

I'll take that a step further: I truly believe that most musicians are in it for the love of music, period.

[Galactus]

Not JUST for money no, but if you don't think money's big factor you're only fooling yourself. I see how you can do both though, that makes total sense to me. You can still be an artist and get paid for it. Thorn my comment had to do with Paul's belief (at least the way I'm reading him) that this coruption only takes place on a major label scale. It doesn't, it exists at all levels in every town. It's more visible at the million dollar level but it's nothing new...it's just more of what's always been there. Your baqnd sucks or it doesn't, you can handle the pressure or you can't...I know bands that can't handle the pressure of being local celebrities. They can't hack on it that level and there's nothing more pure about them then REM or Pearl Jam. I understand certain environments foster creavtivty and that envirnment is different for different people. Some people do more with their alone in their bedroom with a four track others when they have the money to spend six months in the studio ironing out all the wrinkles. I can't say one method is more pure then the other when the end result is just as good for either. Some of the greatest albums ever made are a direct result of that fame and those distractions and that money. The green manilishi with the three horned crown.

[Thorngrub]

ok now I hear ya. & I couldn't agree more. Right on Mantis !

[pauledwardwagemann]

QUESTION #6:
Who was worse? Hippies or Punks?
In the 80s I went through a few different stages as most teens do when they set out to awkwardly find their identity. I never did the Hair Metal thing--thank god, but I did do the punk thing and the hippy thing. I ended up turning by back on both for various reasons I'll probablly get into later... but there was a some good music that I got into by going through those two stages...
Anyway you can answer this question either one of two ways: Who was better? Or who was worse? The hippies or the punks?

[Ryosuke]

I could care less about either of them. Whatever floats their boat.

[Galactus]

I'm not sure there's any better or worse to them...in many ways they're the same thing. Punks I suppose would be more aggressive which some people may see as a negetive, I know as many asshole punks as I do asshole hippies. Hippies are more fun to make fun of, so there's that.

[Paul]

ded said:

pauledwardwagemann said:

I'll admit to some degree, I'm playing the devils advocate and exagerating the points. But in general I find major labels to distract musicians from a musicians ture purpose--which is making music (not making money)...

But see this a flawed logic to begin with. Musicians DO want to make money, very few of them are doing it purely for arts sake and if they are you've probably only heard of them if they live in your town. From the very first gig you get a couple bucks for your art is tainted and it's only varing degrees from there up.

my best friends who are in a band here would love to make money...they definitly don't like their day jobs...They don't make jack shit, so when they do scrape together $200 from a gig, that's huge. they would love to quit their day jobs a start making 6 figures from the music business...hell, if they could just sell 10,000, copies of 'diesel city' that would generate enough buzz to catch some eyes and ears from the record company goons...as it stands, they've sold about 700 copies of their cd. They headlined the Ft. Reno season opener last night for the second year in a row...that's pretty big, b/c you gotta be invited to play, and lots of Dischord bands show up/play...last night there was about 300 people there....after that it was on to Sonic Youth...

[Paul]

re ? #6

I dress more like a hippy -- long hair, flip-flops, raggity jeans, t-shirts, but I listen to more punk...I've never dressed in a punk way, but I'm more inclined to play the Clash over the Dead. Can't both just get along? Assholes are assholes...I've met both hippies and punks that were just as big as pricks at the douche bag ulta conservitive, neo-con, hummer 2 driving jackass.

[Thorngrub]

What a little provocateur pew is huh

[Thorngrub]

hippies = punks