Fawkes
10th December 2010, 02:36
...if we're using the same old voice, we need new noise, new art for the real people"
- Refused
Truer words have never been said about the revolutionary potential of art and music.
I was just listening to Star Fucking Hipsters and I started thinking to myself: how the hell could anyone take their revolutionary calls serious when they're using the same structures and themes that so many other punk bands have been doing for the last 35 years.
There's a reason why Rage Against the Machine was so successful at pushing a revolutionary message (other than major label backing). I'll temporarily forget my dislike of Zack de la Rocha's rapping, but RATM's music was new, innovative, challenging, dangerous, imaginative: it was revolutionary. As such, it served as the perfect backdrop for Zack's admittedly far too blatant calls for revolution. There's a reason why Black Flag, Atari Teenage Riot, Velvet Underground, Fela Kuti, and Public Enemy were so relevant, what they were doing was brand new and innovative.
I mean, let's face it, three chords and a mohawk ain't revolutionary anymore; neither is using the same illuminati references and flow over looped piano tracks. It doesn't matter how revolutionary your lyrics are, if it's being sung over the same old rehashed shit, it loses its significance and impact and relevancy.
Of course the counterargument could be made that the best way to reach people that aren't actively seeking out new musical forms is by using existing ones, but I don't know how much I buy that.
Thoughts?
- Refused
Truer words have never been said about the revolutionary potential of art and music.
I was just listening to Star Fucking Hipsters and I started thinking to myself: how the hell could anyone take their revolutionary calls serious when they're using the same structures and themes that so many other punk bands have been doing for the last 35 years.
There's a reason why Rage Against the Machine was so successful at pushing a revolutionary message (other than major label backing). I'll temporarily forget my dislike of Zack de la Rocha's rapping, but RATM's music was new, innovative, challenging, dangerous, imaginative: it was revolutionary. As such, it served as the perfect backdrop for Zack's admittedly far too blatant calls for revolution. There's a reason why Black Flag, Atari Teenage Riot, Velvet Underground, Fela Kuti, and Public Enemy were so relevant, what they were doing was brand new and innovative.
I mean, let's face it, three chords and a mohawk ain't revolutionary anymore; neither is using the same illuminati references and flow over looped piano tracks. It doesn't matter how revolutionary your lyrics are, if it's being sung over the same old rehashed shit, it loses its significance and impact and relevancy.
Of course the counterargument could be made that the best way to reach people that aren't actively seeking out new musical forms is by using existing ones, but I don't know how much I buy that.
Thoughts?