Premier Rock Forum

Anyone who brings up Susan Sontag while trying to discuss rock and roll doesn't understand rock and roll.

mr.arrison wrote:...I just wanted to state for the record that their uninteresting, theatrical, sample-heavy performance on the Jimmy Kimmel show was both completely KITSCH and stupid.

If you enjoyed that, I'm sure you'll also enjoy the Teapacks, another popular French club act, somewhat lesser-known here in the States:

If that band on the Jimmy Kimmel Show is the same "Justice" that brought about such a transcendent experience for crowds of dance-minded hipster kids in Seattle, then Fun Club have a bright future waiting for them, should they ever relocate to the West Coast.

run joe run wrote:Anyone who brings up Susan Sontag while trying to discuss rock and roll doesn't understand rock and roll.

seconded.

Ms. Sontag's dispassionate treatise notwithstanding, kitsch is an entirely subjective opinion. There are many people for whom an upended bathtub "grotto" sunk into the ground in their front yard with a statue of the Virgin Mary on display inside is a sincere expression of faith and devotion. Just the same, there was a time when jazz music was considered to be part and parcel of the low culture associated with brothels and dive bars. There was a time when photography as a medium was generally considered a "craft" and not an art form worthy of the same consideration of painting, drawing, sculpting, etc.

On the flip-side of this question, are there any musical art forms/genres that are totally serious and completely devoid of camp and whimsy? Is there not some classical music that fits the definition of camp? What about P.D.Q. Bach or the La Gran Scena Opera Company?

No form of art is intrinsically "high", "low", "good" or "bad". Apart from the intrinsic market value of the materials used in construction of the art-object, all value associated with art is extrinsic, attributed by the human emotional and cognitive qualities of the observer or audience and the culture to which they belong.

BTW Nina, you'll always be Nina Nastasia to me no matter what you say.

i think kitsch would be decided by the artist and not the audience.

Colonel Panic wrote:No form of art is intrinsically "high", "low", "good" or "bad".

Agreed.

Colonel Panic wrote:BTW Nina, you'll always be Nina Nastasia to me no matter what you say.

Colonel Panic wrote:On the flip-side of this question, are there any musical art forms/genres that are totally serious and completely devoid of camp and whimsy?

No. There's camp in everything.

Is there not some classical music that fits the definition of camp? What about P.D.Q. Bach or the La Gran Scena Opera Company?

Absolutely.



I agree with most of this post.

However, I still think that a lot of you guys are coming across as anti-intellectual crybabies who want your Slint albums christened as "art". Ace, if you want to know what the problem with art is in democratic societies, this is it.

Rock music does not require the degree of engagement that serious art requires (such as classical or jazz, I'm guessing, when it ceased to be principally the music of dive bars and brothels). Nor does it anywhere near approach the content of a serious work or art, such as a volume of poetry. Most people I know who "grow out" of rock do so for these reasons. What rock lacks in engagement and content it makes up for in affectation and stylization. See Fugazi, etc.

Now, I know and care fuck all about jazz so feel free to ream me here, but it's my understanding that jazz and rock have similar musical roots and jazz branched off and became in large part "musician's music" while rock remains a popular form. And so I ask, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THAT!?! Doesn't something have to be the popular form? Isn't it ok if it's primitive and campy? Seems like by trying to make it "art" you either damage art or you damage rock, and why would you want that?

[Note: PJ in no way approves of the content of this post, and takes issue with a "great deal" of the ideas expressed therein]

tocharian wrote:Rock music does not require the degree of engagement that serious art requires (such as classical or jazz, I'm guessing, when it ceased to be principally the music of dive bars and brothels). Nor does it anywhere near approach the content of a serious work or art, such as a volume of poetry.

Nonsense. Who weighs the content of an album and a book? On what scale? Do you believe rock is the new music of brothels? What, the, fuck?

Most people I know who "grow out" of rock do so for these reasons. What rock lacks in engagement and content it makes up for in affectation and stylization. See Fugazi, etc.

It doesn't surprise me one jot that anyone dismissive of serious intent in rock music would use that misconception as a rationale for discarding it like a once-trendy garment. That actually makes a lot of sense, and it speaks volumes aobut the people who have "outgrown" rock music. I mentioned jazz as the graduation cap of such a commencement earlier.

Kinda curious what you mean by this art-crit word "engagement" you keep knocking around. I suspect you mean something along the lines of intellectual rigor, effort or serious intent. If that's what you mean, then many rock musicians I know "engage" circles around every classical or jazz musician I've ever met.

Now, I know and care fuck all about jazz so feel free to ream me here, but it's my understanding that jazz and rock have similar musical roots and jazz branched off and became in large part "musician's music" while rock remains a popular form. And so I ask, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THAT!?! Doesn't something have to be the popular form? Isn't it ok if it's primitive and campy? Seems like by trying to make it "art" you either damage art or you damage rock, and why would you want that?

Of course there are primitive and campy examples of rock, and of course there's nothing "wrong" with that. That's just not all there is.

jazz as the graduation cap

One of the best threads on here. Hands down.

tocharian wrote:However, I still think that a lot of you guys are coming across as anti-intellectual crybabies who want your Slint albums christened as "art".

So its the job/function of the 'real' intellectuals, or, in your case, the pseudo-intellectuals, to distinguish between 'art' and 'entertainment' (or 'high' and 'low', as you're implying)?

Says who?

I'll tell you who. Its the non-participants, always. Its people like you that get assigned reading like Susan Sontag and it hits a chord with them and their belief system and suddenly they believe they are justified in making across-the-board judgments about the inherent qualities across the entire range of an 'art form'.

Dada was 'primitive' and 'campy' (i guess, at times) but it's intent was as serious as a heart attack and very few peeps outside of its participants granted it any merit as art at all, let alone serious art. Hmmmm.

I think some humility might serve you better in discussing this topic seeing as how you are obviously approaching it only from SS's contentions re: camp.

BTW: I could give a whether Slint is considered 'art' or not. That argument is so fucking dead. I just resent it when people think that because they've read a few books at school and got turned on by some hyper-subjective 'theory' that they think they have a map to some exclusive in-road to what art/rock music/camp/whatever is all about and can pin it down in one sentence like "All rock is camp".

Its nothing but pseudo-i posturing.

edit apostrophe