The band itself was pretty good. Their sound was tightly controlled: the lead guitarist's notes were crisp, clean, and dominant, the bass grooved with a warm elasticity, Jenny Lewis' voice was flawless, full, and oozed with...well Jenny Lewisness.The problem? The crowd. Never have I felt my appreciation for a live show be so diminished by the crowd. There was nothing wrong with the crowd in particular...there were the skinny jeaners,
the hipster hairs
the studded belts
and the skinny jeans with studded belts
...fine. They're everywhere. The real issue is that when you go to a concert attended by these folks, the concerts have no life. Sure there is clapping and yelling after each song ends, as if on command...but there's no dancing. There's no movement. There's no energy. The band plays a slow song: The crowd stands there and watches. The band plays a fast song: The crowd stands there and watches. The band plays a dance number: The crowd stands there and watches. The lead singer claps to get the crowd clapping: A few clap, and critical mass point 1 is reached so that many are clapping, but with a slight increase to critical mass point 2, some people will never start clapping because doing so would make them seem like lame late adopters, and then if you keep clapping, there's fear of being the guy who claps too long.
I can't say what it is...but here's my theory. 1) This is a suburban white people phenomenon. 2) It stems from a well-cultivated perception of "irony." 3) It is borne of self-consciousness and fear of what people think of them. Of course, other people just don't have any interest in being remotely active during a concert...which is fine...but I don't really see this widespread phenomenon at...say...Bjork, Pumpkins, or other shows...just the indie rockers.
In any case, people can do whatever they want. I don't think there's any particular way people should behave at concerts, and I don't necessarily think people should dance or thrash or whatever...it just sorta seems like large crowds of people joined by shared interests and passions should result in something bigger, more energetic, and more fun...not less.
11 comments:
On the starving man example you cited a few posts ago:
If I choose to give him food, say out of charity, or because he offers to work in exchange for it, that's cool.
But if he grabs the food from me, simply because he needs it, and in exchange for nothing that's not cool (actually its called stealing).
Taking that one step further, if the government grabs the food for him, that is also not cool.
It goes back to Tytler's saying, that "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years."
RS
I think where we end up disconnecting is on the first and second points. I agree with what you're saying...but what do we do if:
1) no one is giving out of "charity"
2) he works but yields insufficient food because you don't have to give it to him
The answer isn't "the market will provide enough." Because it hasn't. There's a wide wide variety of ways to deal with the problem: And I would agree that cash transfers and direct redistribution are the least interesting and least useful ways of doing it.s
1.) "People aren't giving out of charity." Unfortunately, and rather harshly, that's just too bad. The government should not use legislative mandate to obviate free choice because it feels people won't choose correctly.
2.) "He works but yields insufficient food because you don't have to give it to him." Remember, that this system is predicated on the sanctity of law. Here, the law of contracts. If I've "contracted" to give the starving man food in exchange for work, then he is duty bound to do the work, and I am duty bound to give him food. None may take advantage by refusing to follow a contractual obligation.
I can hear you asking, but wait, what protects the guy if you don't give him food after he does the work. That my friend, is the whole purpose of having a judicial system.
Then I can hear you asking me, wait, that would take forever, and the starving guy would have to get a lawyer, and it would cost money and time that he clearly doesn't have.
Then I can hear myself saying to you "shut the hell up." Because I haven't quite figured out how to make the judicial system work inexpensively and quickly in my Utopia. But I will. And then your uppance will come.
Anyway, don't you see how this is easier and fairer than the legislatively (in what ever form) Obamaesque collectivist system.
On point two, I don't mean enforceability. I mean oppression. People can't do violence upon each other by contract? What makes you think the numbers of the universe align so perfect so that market price is enough to survive on?
Your answer, in short, is "Fuck em." You just don't admit it. I just can't believe that you believe the things you say. Are you willfully ignoring the holes, problems, gaps, realities? Is that what this is? Your Panglossian worldview is startling to me.
As for your final comment, I actually think I'm going to stop discussing politics with you if you continue to engage in this moronic, Limbaugh-Hannity-Right-Wing Moron smearing and intellectually dishonest form of rhetoric. All it does is communicate that I have nothing to say to you.
Sorry about getting worked up and often being rude, but I am shocked by your reasoning sometimes. It just seems so wrong and willfully deceptive...that or like the voice of religious zealot who proselytizes with the words of a holy man whose faith is really a racket.
In any case, that wasn't much of an apology. Sorry. Maybe this is why friends shouldn't discuss politics.
Damn it Jay, take off your fuckin' blinders. Know why I use the word "collectivism?" Cause Obama just praised this collective idea. Last week. In a speech at Wesleyen University. Read it. What's worse, he BELIEVES it.
I'm not saying he's a socialist, but he's damn close. Read what he's saying. And
You seem to be asserting that my attempts to so describe him stem from a desire to use a word fraught with political, cultural, and social meaning outside of its pure context.
That's not what I'm doing. Change the word socialist to something that doesn't carry all that contextual baggage. Call it Supercalifragilisticexpealidotiousism for all I fucking care.
Read his words. Then tell me he isn't as close as this country has come to a viable socialist candidate since Eugene Debs.
And yes, I'm pissed.
Oh, and on your apology. The reason we can engage in these heated debates is because we are friends. Its in talking to people who disagree with you, rather than then just sitting around with people who agree with you, that I believe constitutes diversity, and intellectual stimulation and growth. Further in so doing I believe both you and I refine our ideas,as divergent as those ideas may be.
Yeah me too.
I would trust you to use words like collectivism and socialism free from their intellectual history if you haven't constantly been using those terms precisely to connote those meanings. The use of the suffix "-ism" is a political tool to denote a different version of whatever has been "ismed." When someone like Rand uses the word "Collectivism," she uses it as a descriptor and a vehicle for attack. It's a word that conjures up soviets.
What exactly is it that Obama says that freaks you out so much? Is it his use of the word collective? Or his exhortation to collective service? Point out what it is that bothers you so much...it seems to be the same thing every candidate in either party has ever said: serve your country, serve your community, serve humanity. This is NOT the same thing as "it is government's job to do so." I thought it was the underlying premise of a libertarian and republican political system that community, culture, families, and individuals would look out for each other so that government doesn't have to. You can't honestly be espousing the lack of any connection to other humans on all fronts: political, moral, social, economic, etc.
The real debate that i'm having with you, though, has nothing to do with Obama. I would actually have been ok with a McCain presidency until I started seeing some of the irresponsible policies he's putting forward...and the fact that the symbolic weight of a Republican victory following this presidency would be far too much for this country to bear on almost all fronts. I don't really get all that inflamed about the politics...it's a lot of your ideas that are driving me crazy.
As for the last point, I would agree...but I actually have a variety of conservative friends I discuss issues with...but I've never encountered such an intense distillation of principles into such an uncompromising framework. For example, the response for the vast majority of libertarians or conservatives on suffering and poverty is that private people, charity, or churches will take care of it. They recognize the hiccup that arises from their principles, and they proffer some solution, albeit unconvincing. Your response, however, was "fuck them, that's too bad," the principles of property supersede the need to survive and gov't shouldn't fix that. Only anarchists are this broadly and bluntly hostile to government and other people.
I fall to the right of many of my friends on many issues...but the debates I get into generally result find a middle ground or point of stasis where we can see our divergent assumptions or conclusions. In our recent exchanges, I've just been flabbergasted by some of the maneuverings that have taken place and don't even know what to do with them.
Well...I was super pissed when I started writing this response, but now I'm bored again. Ok, back to "There Will Be Blood." It's saturday night, what the hell are we doing?
1.) As far as what I was doing on a Saturday night, I was nursing a strained quadriceps. Could barely walk, and it is leaving me bitter and irritable. Better this morning though. By the way, Quentin Tarantino’s portion of Grindhouse was lousy, but I recommend the Robert Rodriquez portion as excellent.
2.) Your contention that a Republican victory would be far too much for this country to bear on almost all fronts is troubling. Roughly half or more of this country is going to vote Republican (according to the latest polls). Can you clarify why at least half of America’s people seem destined to lead this country down a path that would be far too much to bear on almost all fronts?
3.) As far as what Obama is saying that’s driving me crazy, do you want me to focus on his Wesleyan speech or my problems with his platform (e.g. Economy, War in Iraq, National Security) in general?
Tarantino's segment of Grindhouse is absolutely stunning once you figure out what he's doing. Rodriguez's is a generic zombie flick.
Also, I'm not sure how this thread evolved from a post about a Rilo Kiley concert. I'm seeing them for the 5th time next Saturday. A couple of them had the dead hipster crowd you described, but some of them were packed with fans who rocked out and sang along with every song.
So what exactly is Tarantino doing. The first bit up to Stuntman Mike doing his thing was cool although it dragged a bit. But then the movie just seemed to go on and on.
Rodriguez' was a generic zombie flick, but only because it was parodying other zombie generic grindhouse flix. Which was enjoyable, and entertaining.
But I don't get Tarantino's point in Death Proof.
Post a Comment