Post by feelingroovy on Mar 25, 2014 12:20:11 GMT -5
Well put, in my opinion. I share these sentiments. We probably have some of the same influences.
Krist Novoselic: Why the World Needs Céline Dion Fans
Subversives and punks are great — but real political change requires
mainstreamers who show up for hearings.
The first review of a Nirvana recording was bad. I recall it saying
that we were like Lynyrd Skynyrd but without the flares. That was a
comparison that was bound to upset us. Lynyrd Skynyrd had some good
songs (check out the heavy riff on “Saturday Night Special”), but
there were other connotations beyond the music. Lynyrd Skynyrd was
culturally different than us. The line in the sand was drawn as we
opposed the 1970s redneck ethic. The rebel flag of the Confederacy,
central in southern-fried rock imagery, was also an icon of “hair
metal” of the 1980s. So even if a band like Lynyrd Skynyrd rocked, it
had to be held at arm’s length, so as not to contaminate our own
ethics and sensibilities. Nirvana’s anti-establishmentarianism was
rooted in the punk rock of the seventies and eighties. We had our own
symbol of rebellion, the circled “A” for anarchy: The cheerleaders
wearing it in the “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video are not sporting
fashion; the display was a conscious statement of values – albeit tied
to established power mediums.
Establishment rock needed storming in 1992, and our album Nevermind
led the charge. Virtually overnight there was a new musical regime as
the bands that drew from the well of seventies hard rock became
displaced by bands tied to punk. Yet while there was musical change,
many things stayed the same regarding the music business. What if we’d
adopted principled independent positions, like the bands Pavement or
Fugazi, who refused to sign with major labels? Would we ever have been
plugged into the major distribution networks dominating at the time? I
don’t think so. Nirvana’s revolution was in heavy rotation on MTV – a
subsidiary of some corporation. Our own label, DGC, was a business
division emanating from Matsushita, a colossal Japanese industrial
firm. Yet look at band interviews during the Nirvana boom, where we
dutifully promote our fellow subterranean bands. We knew we were in
the belly of the beast and wanted to effect social change through the
power of music.
And I feel we got the message through. There seems to have been an
impact other than other bands picking up the musical dynamics we knew
so well. After Nevermind hit number one, rock music could be about
having a social conscience – just like it was a generation earlier.
That was a tangible effect. However, it is one thing to have a
consciousness of issues and it is another matter to organize them into
a movement. We were a rock band, not political organizers. We had
roadies, so we didn’t even need to carry and set up our own gear
anymore. We played the music but we didn’t organize the show.
More people in the U.S. now engage with politics through social media
on the Internet than attend public hearings about local and state
politics. Comments online are instant reviews by readers that can
reach into the thousands on a single story. Who the heck reads this
far into user comments? Public hearings, on the other hand, might have
one or two people watching actual lawmakers do the people’s work.
Engaging government is where practical social reform can occur – which
is why we have so little practical reform! Instead we have notions of
subversion like the recent Occupy movement. It held promise as a group
brimming with a passion for reform getting out and actually trying to
do something. Regrettably it turned into a bunch of people running
blind down dark alleys. I recognized this early on, so I never
endorsed Occupy. It must have been a relief for many of those taking
to the streets to get things off their chest – and a lot more fun than
sitting in on a boring public hearing.
The people who attend hearings are mainstream types who probably
listen to Céline Dion – hardly the kind of subversive music that
primes storming the barricades. In the year 2000 I watched images of
the fall of Slobodan Milosević on cable news channels. The Serbian
parliament was stormed by protesters and I fell out of my chair when I
heard a song blaring among black smoke billowing from the windows – it
was “Smells Like Teen Spirit”! I thought, “Now this is a great music
video!”
Organizing requires submission to a group, not subversion. Remember
that another term for “band” is “group”: The band works together to
make its sound. With political association, instead of drums and
guitars, the group elects officers and passes action resolutions, all
while following the rules of Robert’s Rules of Order. In Let’s Talk
About Love, Carl Wilson makes the point that you can’t think you’re a
hipster in politics, because it is about human lives. The truth is
that someone with a self-image as a subversive needs to work with a
mainstreamer Céline Dion fan to meet reform goals. That doesn’t mean
you have to listen to Dion’s songs or that they need to embrace your
own subculture. But you do have to listen and work with others – just
like a good band does.
Look at it this way: Imagine that an alternative cultural movement
succeeds in storming a capitol building – after the music and crowds
leave, who’s going to be there to clean up the glass and splintered
furniture and start holding meetings regarding the people’s business?
The answer will always be found among the kinds of folks willing to
spend long hours in meetings, and most of those people are more like
Céline Dion fans. That’s not saying that rock fans who’d prefer to
attack buildings can’t be involved; this is part of the journey to the
end of taste. But who is the gatekeeper to the new legislature? If the
message is that Céline Dion fans need not apply, that reeks of
oppression. Just like The Who sang: “Meet the new boss, same as the
old boss”.
Don’t call me a sellout because I seem to conform to established
political norms. I am the chair of the only group in the United States
promoting proportional representation. I am a currently unaffiliated
voter who has stood up for political association, which is suffering
under a state monopoly over party nominations. I am an active member
of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, a non-partisan group with deep
roots in the nineteenth century. I play a lot of accordion. This all
is decidedly unhip, I guess. I could claim that these political
endeavors are all totally subversive; but admitting that could blow my
cover, so I won’t. Wilson nails it with, “what liberal critics label
subversive seldom pertains to practical social reform.” I engage in
practical social reform.
Subversion is a cool look, but without action it is nothing more than
a pose. Of course some hipster can kick around Céline Dion, but this
kind of thing is too easy in the course of the care and feeding of a
smug self-image. I do my own thing, because as Dion sings, “My Heart
Will Go On.”
Krist Novoselic: Why the World Needs Céline Dion Fans
Subversives and punks are great — but real political change requires
mainstreamers who show up for hearings.
The first review of a Nirvana recording was bad. I recall it saying
that we were like Lynyrd Skynyrd but without the flares. That was a
comparison that was bound to upset us. Lynyrd Skynyrd had some good
songs (check out the heavy riff on “Saturday Night Special”), but
there were other connotations beyond the music. Lynyrd Skynyrd was
culturally different than us. The line in the sand was drawn as we
opposed the 1970s redneck ethic. The rebel flag of the Confederacy,
central in southern-fried rock imagery, was also an icon of “hair
metal” of the 1980s. So even if a band like Lynyrd Skynyrd rocked, it
had to be held at arm’s length, so as not to contaminate our own
ethics and sensibilities. Nirvana’s anti-establishmentarianism was
rooted in the punk rock of the seventies and eighties. We had our own
symbol of rebellion, the circled “A” for anarchy: The cheerleaders
wearing it in the “Smells Like Teen Spirit” video are not sporting
fashion; the display was a conscious statement of values – albeit tied
to established power mediums.
Establishment rock needed storming in 1992, and our album Nevermind
led the charge. Virtually overnight there was a new musical regime as
the bands that drew from the well of seventies hard rock became
displaced by bands tied to punk. Yet while there was musical change,
many things stayed the same regarding the music business. What if we’d
adopted principled independent positions, like the bands Pavement or
Fugazi, who refused to sign with major labels? Would we ever have been
plugged into the major distribution networks dominating at the time? I
don’t think so. Nirvana’s revolution was in heavy rotation on MTV – a
subsidiary of some corporation. Our own label, DGC, was a business
division emanating from Matsushita, a colossal Japanese industrial
firm. Yet look at band interviews during the Nirvana boom, where we
dutifully promote our fellow subterranean bands. We knew we were in
the belly of the beast and wanted to effect social change through the
power of music.
And I feel we got the message through. There seems to have been an
impact other than other bands picking up the musical dynamics we knew
so well. After Nevermind hit number one, rock music could be about
having a social conscience – just like it was a generation earlier.
That was a tangible effect. However, it is one thing to have a
consciousness of issues and it is another matter to organize them into
a movement. We were a rock band, not political organizers. We had
roadies, so we didn’t even need to carry and set up our own gear
anymore. We played the music but we didn’t organize the show.
More people in the U.S. now engage with politics through social media
on the Internet than attend public hearings about local and state
politics. Comments online are instant reviews by readers that can
reach into the thousands on a single story. Who the heck reads this
far into user comments? Public hearings, on the other hand, might have
one or two people watching actual lawmakers do the people’s work.
Engaging government is where practical social reform can occur – which
is why we have so little practical reform! Instead we have notions of
subversion like the recent Occupy movement. It held promise as a group
brimming with a passion for reform getting out and actually trying to
do something. Regrettably it turned into a bunch of people running
blind down dark alleys. I recognized this early on, so I never
endorsed Occupy. It must have been a relief for many of those taking
to the streets to get things off their chest – and a lot more fun than
sitting in on a boring public hearing.
The people who attend hearings are mainstream types who probably
listen to Céline Dion – hardly the kind of subversive music that
primes storming the barricades. In the year 2000 I watched images of
the fall of Slobodan Milosević on cable news channels. The Serbian
parliament was stormed by protesters and I fell out of my chair when I
heard a song blaring among black smoke billowing from the windows – it
was “Smells Like Teen Spirit”! I thought, “Now this is a great music
video!”
Organizing requires submission to a group, not subversion. Remember
that another term for “band” is “group”: The band works together to
make its sound. With political association, instead of drums and
guitars, the group elects officers and passes action resolutions, all
while following the rules of Robert’s Rules of Order. In Let’s Talk
About Love, Carl Wilson makes the point that you can’t think you’re a
hipster in politics, because it is about human lives. The truth is
that someone with a self-image as a subversive needs to work with a
mainstreamer Céline Dion fan to meet reform goals. That doesn’t mean
you have to listen to Dion’s songs or that they need to embrace your
own subculture. But you do have to listen and work with others – just
like a good band does.
Look at it this way: Imagine that an alternative cultural movement
succeeds in storming a capitol building – after the music and crowds
leave, who’s going to be there to clean up the glass and splintered
furniture and start holding meetings regarding the people’s business?
The answer will always be found among the kinds of folks willing to
spend long hours in meetings, and most of those people are more like
Céline Dion fans. That’s not saying that rock fans who’d prefer to
attack buildings can’t be involved; this is part of the journey to the
end of taste. But who is the gatekeeper to the new legislature? If the
message is that Céline Dion fans need not apply, that reeks of
oppression. Just like The Who sang: “Meet the new boss, same as the
old boss”.
Don’t call me a sellout because I seem to conform to established
political norms. I am the chair of the only group in the United States
promoting proportional representation. I am a currently unaffiliated
voter who has stood up for political association, which is suffering
under a state monopoly over party nominations. I am an active member
of the Order of Patrons of Husbandry, a non-partisan group with deep
roots in the nineteenth century. I play a lot of accordion. This all
is decidedly unhip, I guess. I could claim that these political
endeavors are all totally subversive; but admitting that could blow my
cover, so I won’t. Wilson nails it with, “what liberal critics label
subversive seldom pertains to practical social reform.” I engage in
practical social reform.
Subversion is a cool look, but without action it is nothing more than
a pose. Of course some hipster can kick around Céline Dion, but this
kind of thing is too easy in the course of the care and feeding of a
smug self-image. I do my own thing, because as Dion sings, “My Heart
Will Go On.”