Premier Rock Forum

rocker654 wrote:

jcamanei wrote:

rocker654 wrote:

jcamanei wrote:Wu-Tang Clan
Los Crudos

Please to explain: Are these rock musicians, and how did they change anything, much less than the world?

Or am I missing the point of some non-sequitors?

sequitur?

that depends on what you define as rock

Thanks for the correct spelling. The spell check function brings up a blank screen on my Mac, which I am forced to use since the cats have apparently eaten my mouse cord on my Windows PC.

For the sake of argument (I have not read this definition in depth), this article should clarify more what I define as rock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_music

Specifically, I cite:

Social impacts

Social impact of rock and roll
The influence of rock and roll is far-reaching, and has had significant impact worldwide on fashion, film styles, and attitudes towards sex and sexuality and use of drugs and alcohol. This impact is broad enough that "rock and roll" may also be considered a life style in addition to a form of music.

I happened to mention those two groups because of the impact they and similar groups had on me and and my friends as teenagers.

Both sang about different things (sometimes lame gangsta shit) but all these things had to do with what I saw, heard about (not on tv or radio) and experienced everyday.

Punk rock changed our lifes though.

Ahhh, they changed YOUR world.

Opposed to someone like Bono, who is trying to use his celebrity status to effect change in the world, particularly Africa. However much I may dislike his music, he seems to be using celebrity as a wedge to get to politicians anxious for cred.

Bush is trying to change the world, and he's probably in a better position to do it than most rock musicians.

Musicians (even rock musicians) are no better qualified to effect POSITIVE (relative) change on the world than actors.

The Beatles!!

They changed the map. Socially and musically. Bigger than Jesus of Nazareth!

John Lennon had so much social power (even though he was gone on H) to scare the American government.

Power to the people. Power to the people right now.

Fugazi??? They have changed things! Yes. They have made the DIY ethic common in music. They have not influenced millions of people in what that the above has.

Shit. I just thought of Michael Jackson too. WE ARE THE WORLD. WE ARE THE CHILDRENNNN!

ChristopherM wrote:

Excellent point.
Before he came along nobody was rocking over London.
Plus, he encouraged Chicago to rock on, at a point when old Chi town was thinking about throwing in the hat.

Now look at the world we live in!

Salut, WW, I hope heaven is full of McDonalds, Dr. Pepper, and STP that actually works.

-A

i think anything and everything bono does is hilarious.

including flying in private jets for the u2 australian tour.

mr.arrison wrote:

Justin from Queens wrote:
Why Neil Young?

I think Neil's worthy. He may be the real flip-flopper (backing Reagan, the invasion of Iraq) but when he's on my page, he's made me think about the world in a progressive way.

examples:

Rockin' In the Free World
Cortez the Killer
That last record
Southern Man

etc...

Compare and contrast with other artists from those eras:

Lynryd Skynrd: fucking hee haw redneck, insidiously racist bullshit
Eagles: fucking retarded, non-thinking music.
Jimmy Buffett: what-the-fuck-ever.
Led Zeppelin: Great band, but Immigrant Song wasn't really Pro-immigration. I can't call them lyrically challenging from a social justice standpoint.
Grateful Dead: Created generations of pointless hippies, drug addicts and noodly, nastacious music. Did they ever even play a fucking benefit? Probably not, unless it was for LSD, or junk food.

Actually, The Grateful Dead played more benefit concerts over their 30 years than perhaps any other band at a similar or higher level of success and have almost certainly raised more money for social causes than any other individual band. Your vitriol towards them clearly shows your own ignorance. Pointless hippies? To who? Certainly not to the hundreds of thousands who saw them over the years; many of whom were affected to such a degree that they radically changed their lives for the better in various ways. Did you ever actually go to a Dead show? Probably not because if you had then you would have found it filled with some of the nicest people you have ever met. My, what a high fucking horse you're on. Drug addicts? I hardly think they were singularly unique in that regard, and though hard drugs did follow and affect them the vast majority of their fans indulged in nothing but pot and psychedelics. You sound like the DEA for fucks sake... As for junk food, Garcia's well known weakness for it has nothing to do with anyone but himself. You need to get your head out of your ass mr.arrison.

Hyperbole you may think it is, but the Grateful Dead changed the world perhaps more than any other group of musicians in the last 40 years. Though you may not like their musical style, or the so-called Jam-band genre that spawned from them, singularly create it they did - a feat few other musicians or groups can claim. Not only that, but they also created, or at least allowed to coalesce around them, the entire alternative sub-culture of people known as Deadheads who would go on the road with them due to their almost non-stop touring and refusal to ever play the same set list twice (not even writing one usually, but making it up while on stage) or even their songs in the same way. Whether you liked this or not is beside the point: it was unique, original and though it got out of hand towards the end, the spirit itself was an echo of the restless, ever exploring spirit of their music. Then there is their eschewal of standard music industry conventions: quitting Warner Bros. in 1973 to go completely independent becoming perhaps the original DIY rock band; and for years unofficially, and then in 1984 officially allowing audience members to record their live shows for private use something that was considered commercial suicide by many, but has since been adoped by hundreds of musical groups.

The Dead indeed live on.

Incornsyucopia wrote:Actually, The Grateful Dead played more benefit concerts over their 30 years than perhaps any other band at a similar or higher level of success and have almost certainly raised more money for social causes than any other individual band. <snip>

Hyperbole you may think it is, but the Grateful Dead changed the world perhaps more than any other group of musicians in the last 40 years. Though you may not like their musical style, or the so-called Jam-band genre that spawned from them, singularly create it they did <snip>

Yoda-speak aside, most of what you said points to the Dead as an important cultural act rather than a social force for good. Still, the benefit show thing seems to be a possibility. If a 16 year old Jerry Garcia thought "I am going to start a rock band that will change the world for the better by playing a ridiculous amount of benefit shows whenever possible", he may have in fact been able to have a greater benefit than if he'd become a nurse. I have no idea how many shows they played or what the benefit was. Could you tell us more about this? I'm curious.

= Justin

PS - As a fan of the Dead, you shouldn't act so surprised that their distinct culture and image is so polarizing. You like it. Others find them indulgent, boring and distasteful. This dislike is often referenced in allusion to the strong drug culture and hippie nonsense that were closely tied to the Dead. That shouldn't be a shock.

muslimgauze

Justin from Queens wrote:

Incornsyucopia wrote:Actually, The Grateful Dead played more benefit concerts over their 30 years than perhaps any other band at a similar or higher level of success and have almost certainly raised more money for social causes than any other individual band. <snip>

Hyperbole you may think it is, but the Grateful Dead changed the world perhaps more than any other group of musicians in the last 40 years. Though you may not like their musical style, or the so-called Jam-band genre that spawned from them, singularly create it they did <snip>

Yoda-speak aside, most of what you said points to the Dead as an important cultural act rather than a social force for good. Still, the benefit show thing seems to be a possibility. If a 16 year old Jerry Garcia thought "I am going to start a rock band that will change the world for the better by playing a ridiculous amount of benefit shows whenever possible", he may have in fact been able to have a greater benefit than if he'd become a nurse. I have no idea how many shows they played or what the benefit was. Could you tell us more about this? I'm curious.

= Justin

PS - As a fan of the Dead, you shouldn't act so surprised that their distinct culture and image is so polarizing. You like it. Others find them indulgent, boring and distasteful. This dislike is often referenced in allusion to the strong drug culture and hippie nonsense that were closely tied to the Dead. That shouldn't be a shock.

I'm in fact not at all surprised that all things Grateful Dead related are so polarizing - especially on this message board - and I'm sorry that my last post made you think otherwise. Its antagonism was directed rather at the sheer ignorance of mr. arrisson claiming that the Grateful Dead never played any benefit shows. This was a band, afterall, that played god-knows how many free shows in its early days. Though these were usually not about raising money but rather benefiting the community that they saw themselves as being a part of, I'd say it still counts. As for shows which were about raising money for good causes I can point you to here which talks about their Rex Foundation that has given away millions of dollars over the years. There's a lot of other links if you care to google the appropriate words as well.

As to the Dead being an important cultural act rather than a social force for good, I'd be personally hesitant about drawing a sharp distinction between the two: positive alternative cultural acts ARE a social good in and of themselves. Of course, the title of the thread did not refer specifically to musicians that made significant social improvements to the world, but simply to musicians that changed the world in presumably any way. The influence of the Dead's musical and cultural originality was huge whether one likes what they did (as I do) or not.

Incornsyucopia wrote:

mr.arrison wrote:

Justin from Queens wrote:
Why Neil Young?

I think Neil's worthy. He may be the real flip-flopper (backing Reagan, the invasion of Iraq) but when he's on my page, he's made me think about the world in a progressive way.

examples:

Rockin' In the Free World
Cortez the Killer
That last record
Southern Man

etc...

Compare and contrast with other artists from those eras:

Lynryd Skynrd: fucking hee haw redneck, insidiously racist bullshit
Eagles: fucking retarded, non-thinking music.
Jimmy Buffett: what-the-fuck-ever.
Led Zeppelin: Great band, but Immigrant Song wasn't really Pro-immigration. I can't call them lyrically challenging from a social justice standpoint.
Grateful Dead: Created generations of pointless hippies, drug addicts and noodly, nastacious music. Did they ever even play a fucking benefit? Probably not, unless it was for LSD, or junk food.

Actually, The Grateful Dead played more benefit concerts over their 30 years than perhaps any other band at a similar or higher level of success and have almost certainly raised more money for social causes than any other individual band. Your vitriol towards them clearly shows your own ignorance. Pointless hippies? To who? Certainly not to the hundreds of thousands who saw them over the years; many of whom were affected to such a degree that they radically changed their lives for the better in various ways. Did you ever actually go to a Dead show? Probably not because if you had then you would have found it filled with some of the nicest people you have ever met. My, what a high fucking horse you're on. Drug addicts? I hardly think they were singularly unique in that regard, and though hard drugs did follow and affect them the vast majority of their fans indulged in nothing but pot and psychedelics. You sound like the DEA for fucks sake... As for junk food, Garcia's well known weakness for it has nothing to do with anyone but himself. You need to get your head out of your ass mr.arrison.

Hyperbole you may think it is, but the Grateful Dead changed the world perhaps more than any other group of musicians in the last 40 years. Though you may not like their musical style, or the so-called Jam-band genre that spawned from them, singularly create it they did - a feat few other musicians or groups can claim. Not only that, but they also created, or at least allowed to coalesce around them, the entire alternative sub-culture of people known as Deadheads who would go on the road with them due to their almost non-stop touring and refusal to ever play the same set list twice (not even writing one usually, but making it up while on stage) or even their songs in the same way. Whether you liked this or not is beside the point: it was unique, original and though it got out of hand towards the end, the spirit itself was an echo of the restless, ever exploring spirit of their music. Then there is their eschewal of standard music industry conventions: quitting Warner Bros. in 1973 to go completely independent becoming perhaps the original DIY rock band; and for years unofficially, and then in 1984 officially allowing audience members to record their live shows for private use something that was considered commercial suicide by many, but has since been adoped by hundreds of musical groups.

The Dead indeed live on.

Incornsyucopia, I did not know this, I am ignorant about the Dead. I was making a generalization based on my experience with the chowderheaded, future-business-leaders of america frat boy motherfuckers who drive BMW's, date rape 18 year old sorority chicks, and pretend to act progressive that made up a good majority of their fans in the late 1980's and 90's. This is only in my limited world-view, so it can be ignored.