CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Why are attention whores hijacking my culture?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why are attention whores hijacking my culture?

post #1 of 36
Thread Starter 
Why are attention whores hijacking my culture?

A rant about our cultural Icons.


Now, I understand the words of this post may allude to a lunatic living in a sea of nostalgia with a glorified conception of the past, but I do believe that anyone who experienced their teenage years within the 80s, 90s or prior may agree with me.
I’ve been noticing a steady decline of our past cultural, artistic and political icons, and they’re quietly being replaced with loud, pale imitations who are obviously in it for a variation of fame or fortune. I am seeing this infiltration in various aspects of culture and I will begin with Music:

Music

Remember the glory days of rock? I mean I remember there was a time when Soundgarden, Nirvana, Red Hot Chilli Peppers, Led Zeppelin, AC DC, Metallica, Ozzy Aerosmith, Tupac, Guns N’ Roses, Rage Against The Machine, all reigned supreme. These were our icons, these were the pioneers of our generations. When I turn on MTV or VH1 I realize, it’s not the new generations of artists that are fusing new and exciting forms of rock and giving me the beats to rock out to, it’s still the same old people that were pioneers 10 years ago. Bare in mind, I’m not talking about bad music vs good music, I’m discussing iconography and creativity.



I mean, the last great iconic band with music that I could add to the rock vault of awesome was probably Audioslave, whom are merely a fusion of two of the bands mentioned in the previous paragraph. Red Hot Chilli Peppers are still the only artists I can rely on for quality. With Green Day, U2, Velvet Revolver (another 90s revival/fusion) and Eddie Vedder, still staying as chart toppers The only real band I can honestly say can contend with the rock juggernauts of yore would be the White Stripes and The Raconteurs (To a lesser extent).

Now, I don’t really mind the music of today that much, but I’m pissed at all this talk of Band X being the next Band Y. I just attempted to name some of the bands of today that are attempting to attain some form of iconography and I can’t for the life of me remember a single one. When before we had interesting movements that came and went, for example, Disco, Grunge, Hard Rock, Metal, today we have Emo rock and Nu-Metal? I understand that I may be equating movements with trends here, but still when contemporary music has nothing exciting to show for itself than a variation of 70s, 80s, and 90s revivals and the two trends or movements mentioned above I start to get pissed.

Let’s forget rock, let’s move on to something like pop music. Now I don’t really listen to pop, but there are the occasional artists or songs here and there I could appreciate. I mean, there was literally a point in our lives where the kings, queens and generals of pop were Michael Jackson, Madonna, George Michael, Prince and Mariah Carey. There was literally a point where all those artists would have hit after hit playing within the same year. These were the artists at the top of their game. Who do we have no being heralded as the next Madonna? Britney Spears? Lindsay Lohan? Paris Hilton?

Who’s the next Michael Jackson? Chris Brown? Fuck that shit. The fact that there even is an obsession with the idea of x is the next y is frustrating and what I honestly believe is the source of this decline in quality. When before we had these pioneers and exciting innovators delivering our entertainment, today we have the kids who grew up wishing they could be them delivering it while aping their style. What depth or value does a song like “Rumors” by Lohan or “Gimmie More” by Spears have in comparison with “Like a Prayer” by Madonna, “Jesus to a Child” by George Michael or “Billie Jean” by Michael Jackson? Maybe it’s unfair, and maybe I’m comparing the old artists at their peak with fresh faced pop stars of today who have yet to mature, but I call B.S, I doubt anyone we see singing today will achieve a fraction of what we’ve seen in the past.

Rap is suffering from a similar fate with every rapper longing to be Tupac, aping his style but never analyzing why it is that he worked so well as a rapper (my theory is that it was honestly his love of books and his intellectual outlook on life). I can think of a specific distinct style or iconic movement to associate with every decade from the 70s, 80s and 90s, but now with this decade nearing a close I can think of nothing but a bunch of attention whores aping their heroes and enjoying their fame and fortune while my entertainment quality sits in a rut.

I wished to get into my bigger rant which was movies, but I doubt anyone will read this post if I rant any further. I will return later with the rest of the rant. Please tell me if you share my views or if you disagree. Thank You.
post #2 of 36
Audioslave is fucking shit.
post #3 of 36
And all you damn kids get off my lawn!
post #4 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
Why are attention whores hijacking my message board?
Fixed.
post #5 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
I wished to get into my bigger rant which was movies, but I doubt anyone will read this post if I rant any further.
Considering the demographic of these here boards, you probably should have started with your rant about movies. That is, of course, if you are NOT some cut-and-paste troll. We shall see.
post #6 of 36
What you described above is what you consider the essence of your culture?

Sad.
post #7 of 36
Thread Starter 
Well I do agree they are considered shit by a lot of music fans, although I would personally beg to differ, my point isn't necessarily about Audioslave but that we are still depending on the rock gods of the past to deliver quality music as opposed to the newer generation taking what they've learned from the past and moving forward. Now I understand that there are tons of great bands out there that aren't getting the recognition they deserve, but my rant is concerned with the quality of artists we see today gracing the majority of our screen and getting all our attention.
post #8 of 36
Eddie Vedder? and Pearl Jam not a "real" band?

You lost me.
post #9 of 36
Quote:
Red Hot Chilli Peppers are still the only artists I can rely on for quality.
On a serious note, you can't bemoan current bands rehashing old sounds and then offer up the Chili Peppers as an example of a good band. They stole most of their good stuff from Fishbone who stole most of their good stuff from the Wailers or P-Funk.
post #10 of 36
Your rant is also shit. Like you. You can't even find the music section of the board.
post #11 of 36
Don't hotlink your images.
post #12 of 36
Tupac is in your list of rock legends? There is just as much quality music now as ever. I remember my parents telling me that Soundgarden and Nirvana were piss poor comparisons to Skynard and The Knack. Did you really expect the world to worship fucking AC/DC forever. Kids today don't wanna hear that shit.
post #13 of 36
I love Soundgarden and Euphoria Morning-era Cornell, but Audioslave is godawful.

Also what Tati said. I just noticed that, and it set off my Stab-meter.
post #14 of 36
I wouldn't and never have used MTV as a source for finding good music.
post #15 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tati View Post
Eddie Vedder? and Pearl Jam not a "real" band?

You lost me.
No Tati that's not what I meant at all, I mean that we're still relying on Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam as they are still the only decent bands. My rant is basically trying to say that corporate greed and people in it for attention and money are dominating our music now more so than say 20 years ago.

As for the guy that thought I was a troll, I sincerely apologize if you took offense to how I worded my opinions, I do not mean to offend or make any unfounded malicious attacks, I'm merely stating a frustration and I'm wondering if anyone feels the same way.

I'm not saying that THESE particular bands are the essence of my culture, I'm saying that these are the bands that I'm seeing on TV today and I'm comparing them with the bands I used to see on Television growing up.

However, I do agree with the poster who said that I can't blame people today for borrowing, seeing as how Red Hot Chilli peppers did it and so did the bands before, but I would just like to make a little distinction here. Red Hot Chilli Peppers seem to genuinely be trying to make good music when borrowing these elements (which is a natural part of the creative process), but I genuinely feel that bands today aren't so much as borrowing and mixing it up, but lifting directly.
post #16 of 36
Okay, now that I've re-read the rant I just want to point out the inherent contradiction in this:

Quote:
Who do we have no being heralded as the next Madonna?
Quote:
The fact that there even is an obsession with the idea of x is the next y is frustrating and what I honestly believe is the source of this decline in quality.
Figure out what you're trying to say before posting. (ETA: That came out as snotty and was certainly not meant to be. Just that you may want to re-work your next theory before posting it)
post #17 of 36
The only new artist worth talking about is Patrick Ripoll.
post #18 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
I'm not saying that THESE particular bands are the essence of my culture, I'm saying that these are the bands that I'm seeing on TV today and I'm comparing them with the bands I used to see on Television growing up.
TV is probably the worst way to experience music, or actually the least desirable method of experiencing music.
post #19 of 36
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
Okay, now that I've re-read the rant I just want to point out the inherent contradiction in this:





Figure out what you're trying to say before posting.
Sorry I agree maybe I wasn't clear enough. I'm not supporting the idea of using the words "the next ______" I'm merely saying that that is what is being used right now, and that first of all I disagree with the examples MTV is using, second of all I'm disagreeing with the notion's usage in general.
post #20 of 36
Quote:
I mean, the last great iconic band with music that I could add to the rock vault of awesome was probably Audioslave
*does not compute*
post #21 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pvt. Spunkmeyer View Post
*does not compute*
Chicks dig it. You dig?
post #22 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post
No Tati that's not what I meant at all, I mean that we're still relying on Eddie Vedder and Pearl Jam as they are still the only decent bands. My rant is basically trying to say that corporate greed and people in it for attention and money are dominating our music now more so than say 20 years ago.
The Monkees would like a word with you.

Corporate greed and rock music go together like girl jeans and emo kids. It's not new (ever heard of payola?).

There's some absolutely incredible music out there right now including Arcade Fire, Of Montreal, Vampire Weekend, Priestess, Okervil River, The Hold Steady etc. and those aren't even the obscure one. I think most of thsoe bands get play on regular radio.

I guess my point is don't bemoan the loss of 'real' music, just dig a little deeper to find it. It could be as simple as listening online to a station like CKUA from Edmonton, Alberta or subscribing to a music magazine beyond Rolling Stone.
post #23 of 36
Whoever's having trouble finding decent music isn't working nearly hard enough.
post #24 of 36
and for future reference Audioslave is not even worthy of playing in the cab on the way to the rock vault of awesomeness.
post #25 of 36
Thread Starter 
Well I think I'd have to agree with you there actually Ryan.

I guess maybe the weakness of my post was that I emphasized the lack of good music, as opposed to the increase in rather bad music. However, it's also not music in general that I'm criticizing, it's the mainstream music you see on MTV and VH-1. Yes, they're obviously not the best sources of quality music but that's exactly my point...why shouldn't they be the best sources of quality music?
post #26 of 36
MTV and VH-1 still show music?
post #27 of 36
Thread Starter 
My point exactly.
post #28 of 36
Early in the morning. But I digress.

TV based music can never be the best sources for quality music, because they will always appeal to the widest audiences. TV has the largest marketing budgets, usually has the widest reach for marketing influences, and usually has the best return for marketing. Therefore, it will always be about what's going to sell the most tickets rather then what's artistically the best for that genre.

You dig?
post #29 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan S~ View Post
The Monkees would like a word with you.

Corporate greed and rock music go together like girl jeans and emo kids. It's not new (ever heard of payola?).

There's some absolutely incredible music out there right now including Arcade Fire, Of Montreal, Vampire Weekend, Priestess, Okervil River, The Hold Steady etc. and those aren't even the obscure one. I think most of thsoe bands get play on regular radio.

I guess my point is don't bemoan the loss of 'real' music, just dig a little deeper to find it. It could be as simple as listening online to a station like CKUA from Edmonton, Alberta or subscribing to a music magazine beyond Rolling Stone.
That's how I see it. I've only been around in the world for the past 21 years, but the impression I get is that shitty pop music and attention whores have always been most visible on the surface media. There are a LOT of really really good bands out there right now, a lot of good movies and books and other forms of art too, you just can't expect to find it on MTV or in the gossip rags.
post #30 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by billylove View Post
Early in the morning. But I digress.

TV based music can never be the best sources for quality music, because they will always appeal to the widest audiences. TV has the largest marketing budgets, usually has the widest reach for marketing influences, and usually has the best return for marketing. Therefore, it will always be about what's going to sell the most tickets rather then what's artistically the best for that genre.

You dig?
This. Plus you have to take into account that a lot of people don't like their music to be challenging or different. These are usually people who don't have a favorite band/musician(not to be confused with music freaks who like way too many bands/musicians to make a choice), consider Applebee's to be the epitome of good restaurants, and probably work in a goddamn fucking cubicle.
post #31 of 36
Thread Starter 
But one could argue that Madonna and Michael Jackson weren't really challenging or new but they were offering up high quality entertainment. I understand there is a huge variety of quality of alternative music but I'm comparing Madonna with what her equivalent is today. Michael with what his equivalent is today, etc.
post #32 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jake View Post
This. Plus you have to take into account that a lot of people don't like their music to be challenging or different. These are usually people who don't have a favorite band/musician(not to be confused with music freaks who like way too many bands/musicians to make a choice), consider Applebee's to be the epitome of good restaurants, and probably work in a goddamn fucking cubicle.
Jesus, Jake, it's not as though I like working in a fucking cubicle...
post #33 of 36
Thread Starter 
Well I'm off now,

I would like to sincerely apologize to my fellow chewers who posted here.

I am in fact a very old poster from the pre-historic times before CHUD's makeover and I re-registered for the sole fact that I remembered that CHUD was one of the rare places where I could get more decent critical responses.

Anyway, I'm merely apologizing to those who took offense to what I typed up and thought I was trolling, it was just a sincere frustration that I had to get off my chest. I see from the unanimous criticism and negative response to what I guess, to put it lightly, some of you have implicitly deemed a mediocre argument, I wont continue the other planned rants. (I understand this belongs in the music forum, but my original intention was for it to touch up on a variety of cultural subjects).

I guess no one really agrees with my perspective, but I would like to thank all those who replied whether negatively or positively and would like to once again apologize to anyone I may have pissed off (especially MissZooey, Minksy [thanks for the heads up on the hotlink I did it unconsciously] and Mattimus- I hope you still don't think me a troll).

Thank You.

P.S- However I would like to point out that I made a mistake which I think is misleading people about my intentions...this rant isn't about music but about more about cultural icons.
post #34 of 36
Wow, I had completely forgotten I had accused you of possibly being a troll. My apologies, I didn't have my morning cup of joe. I guess after reading the umpteenth Lifetime-related thread from our resident tag-team shills, latentgreens and justdecent, I become very wary of new posters.

Also, nobody is saying you need to leave the boards. Give what people are saying some serious thought and afterwards decide if your original argument still holds water.
post #35 of 36
I don't think you're a troll, but if you believe your rant is anything but you getting old, you're wrong. Every generation does this. Rather than point out how little you know about great modern bands/artists, let's just focus on the way you find them...

When the Boomers saw MTV for the first time, they saw a place where kids watched awful new-wave music. With the new power of the video, all sorts of shitty artists were getting major play because they had a good video, or because their production companies had fat wallets. To them, radio was where great music was found, based upon their experiences in the 50s and 60s. Eventually the radio sold out (just like MTV would).

But, you grew up with MTV, so that's where you still think to go to find 'good music', as if the music of MTV and the radio where the only outlets. Shit has changed. We're a connected society and The Internet has changed the way kids today find music. They don't watch MTV to see the latest bands, they do it to watch reality shows. Kids are logged in all the time now, and iTunes and the insane number of websites devoted to modern music have changed everything.

Cultural Icons? They're still out there, and they're just as 'great' as the ones you admired growing up. You just don't know where to find them because you're old and unhip.

As a few of the people on the board know, one of my pet-peeves is generational pretentiousness. Nirvana is an icon of your years, but people 10-20 years older than you thought they were shallow and talentless. GenXs cultural icons were seen as empty and without purpose. They were wrong then just as you are now.
post #36 of 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by Name_user View Post

I am in fact a very old poster from the pre-historic times before CHUD's makeover
Otherwise known as January, 2008.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Misc. Culture
CHUD.com Community › Forums › CULTURE, HUMOR, & FREE FORM › Misc. Culture › Why are attention whores hijacking my culture?