RE: MD Nihilism (Punk)

From: Arlo J. Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Sat Mar 19 2005 - 20:35:12 GMT

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD Nihilism (Punk)"

    Platt,

    > If you can you find such blatantly sexual lyrics as this ever sung by
    > Frank Sinatra or Peggy Lee, let me know:
    >

    Okay. For the record then, (1) your problem with "rock" is "overtly sexual
    lyrics", (2) music with covertly or suggestive sexual themes or innuendos is
    okay. So, The Clash's "White Man in Hammersmith Palais" is a perfectly okay
    song, since it is about race relations and has no sexual content whatsover.
    Peggy Lee's "Fever", although very heavy in sexual innuendo is also okay,
    because she doesn't come right out and say "sex". Is this correct so far?...

    > Pete Pablo - "Freak-a-Leak" video,

    continuing... (3) you quote "Pete Pablo" and are able to make a general
    conclusion about all rock music. This a little like using a the Marquis de Sade
    quote to "prove" the degeneracy of books. After all, his "120 Days of Sodom" is
    very overtly sexual, as is Henry Miller and Anais Nin (to name only but a few).
    But, for the record, you would condemn "all rock music" because of the overtly
    sexually lyrics of some. Correct?

    > Looks to me like Bloom's analysis of rock is right on,.

    Ha ha, hardly. Unless his vapid logic appeals to you. And from your amazingly
    broad generalizations, it appears it does. But it's rather laughable you try to
    pass it of as "right on". Besides a complete lack of critical definition (what
    is "rock"? Does bluegrass count? Salsa? Polka?), he and you display a complete
    lack of any critical argument (your "overt sexual lyrics" may be a reasonable
    first step, but this hardly applies to all "rock" music, and leaves open the
    question as to why "implied sexual themes", such as Peggy Lee, are not
    problematic at all). It lacks contextual regard for other media, such as
    literature, and offers no explaination for why Henry Miller is either (1) okay,
    or (2) not used to launch ill-conceived arguments against all literature. Are
    "nudes" okay in Art? Why? If so, then it is can't be "overtly sexual
    references", as you cite above. You could try modifying your argument to
    "vulgar overt references", which would put you square in step with Rigel and
    Victorian mentality. Which is fine with me, I don't care, but I'm in agreement
    with Pirsig about them.

     and Pirsig came up
    > with the perfect word to describe it -- degenerate.

    Then Pirsig is a denegerate. I seem to recall him enjoying a very sexual song in
    a bar, dancing with a bar whore, banging her on his boat, and then writing
    about it in a book on metaphysics. He was not ashamed, never expresses it was
    "wrong". Indeed, I'd much rather hang out at a bar with Pirsig (philosophy
    aside) than Rigel.

    Maybe you should be more like Pirsig, Platt, and stop trying to be Rigel. Get
    out, have some drinks, dance to some rock, and... well, you know the rest.

    Arlo

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 19 2005 - 20:39:16 GMT