With the flood of Prince meme's on the internet, I thought it would be good to balance the popular sentiment with the view that I respect his talent, but never liked his music all that much.
Furthermore, there are many thousands, if not millions, of great musicians in the world, and I will not glorify any one of them so much.
I think the celebrity phenomena is destructive an unhealthy, and I won't engage in it.
Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
-
Idonotlikebroccoli
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:29 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
u just did thomylkoa wrote:I won't engage in it.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
Why do you say that?
-
Machinesworking
- Posts: 11421
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
^^^Because by talking about it you feed it, not unlike a certain billionaire that's interested in walls. <that subject is off limits though so...
Mostly I agree in the sense that fame generates this extraordinary focus on even the least significant accomplishments of talented individuals.
I'm not a big fan of the out of hand egos that come with fame, Prince was notoriously angry about Weird Al Yankovic doing parodies of his songs, and I lose respect for anyone incapable of taking a joke.
People put on pedestals often end up turing into spoiled brats.
Here's the clincher though, I love electronic music etc. but there are recordings by 70's rockers that sound amazing, the labels spent at times a million dollars to put out a record, Pink Floyd spent an entire year in the recording studio producing Dark Side of the Moon for instance. Although this didn't always produce great music, it's of a different category than the way music is produced these days.
Mostly I agree in the sense that fame generates this extraordinary focus on even the least significant accomplishments of talented individuals.
I'm not a big fan of the out of hand egos that come with fame, Prince was notoriously angry about Weird Al Yankovic doing parodies of his songs, and I lose respect for anyone incapable of taking a joke.
People put on pedestals often end up turing into spoiled brats.
Here's the clincher though, I love electronic music etc. but there are recordings by 70's rockers that sound amazing, the labels spent at times a million dollars to put out a record, Pink Floyd spent an entire year in the recording studio producing Dark Side of the Moon for instance. Although this didn't always produce great music, it's of a different category than the way music is produced these days.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."Machinesworking wrote:^^^Because by talking about it you feed it, not unlike a certain billionaire that's interested in walls. <that subject is off limits though so...
Celebrity worship, "mourning sickness", personality cults, pop culture media drivel, etc. aren't exactly "tyranny", but...
I think ignoring something is the least effective strategy to try to change it - especially social issues.
I think standing up for what you believe in is more effective.
But changing people's minds isn't my first priority... my immediate agenda is:
-stand up for what I believe is good, healthy, and morally right.
-invite discussion (I'm confident in my beliefs, but I welcome a CALM discussion)
-find other people who share my values, and make connections with like-minded people
Looks like I'm achieving my goals.
I find it a little puzzling though... if you agree with me... if... then why do you challenge me? Why not support and encourage an ally?
Cheers.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
I love weird Al. A sense of humor is so important.
And Prince had another spoiled brat moment when he wanted to be known as "the artist formerly knows as"... I seem to remember mass media making fun of him for that... and now they can't stop exploiting his death...
I think these are just diversionary tactics to try and create a sense of unity. The USA is so fragmented right now, there's a lot of racial tension - especially between black people and the police... so the media latches on to Prince, who had appeal for white and black people, so two sides can agree on something for a little bit. I think that's the real reason this is being drummed up so much. To placate people.
Really, what the people at large need to be focusing on is how the police have, again, avoided having to be accountable, or how the elections are rigged in this country, or the Panama papers, or a million other issues that plague this world. But the news doesn't want to talk about that kind of stuff. They would rather blast something mindless.... to put people to sleep... into submission.
The funny thing is, that guy from Norway... the broccoli guy... accuses me of fanning the flames of celebrity-ism by talking about it.... but I think, it's ignoring the problem that's making it worse. If people don't talk about how celebrity-ism, and the mass media are keeping us from discussing important problems in society, then those important problems will just fester... and I think that's what's been happening in America. It's basically denial... and with every passing decade, I think this country is feeling it more and more, and is slowly destroying itself.
Not 100% sure what you mean about the "clincher"... are you saying that celebrity-ism has it's merits, because Pink Floyd were celebrities, and so they got lots of resources, which allowed them to take a year to make an amazing album (like Dark Side)? Yeah... no doubt, I agree with you. I think that's a separate topic... getting a lot of resources funneled your way because you are a talented, and know how to wield them, is different from mass media blackout, egos, and personality cults. I think Pink Floyd getting a bunch of money for studio time makes sense, and helped society add another great work of art to the roster (raises people up)... I think the mass media appealing to personality cults to stop people form thinking is hurting us (drags people down).
In any case, nice chatting with ya!
And Prince had another spoiled brat moment when he wanted to be known as "the artist formerly knows as"... I seem to remember mass media making fun of him for that... and now they can't stop exploiting his death...
I think these are just diversionary tactics to try and create a sense of unity. The USA is so fragmented right now, there's a lot of racial tension - especially between black people and the police... so the media latches on to Prince, who had appeal for white and black people, so two sides can agree on something for a little bit. I think that's the real reason this is being drummed up so much. To placate people.
Really, what the people at large need to be focusing on is how the police have, again, avoided having to be accountable, or how the elections are rigged in this country, or the Panama papers, or a million other issues that plague this world. But the news doesn't want to talk about that kind of stuff. They would rather blast something mindless.... to put people to sleep... into submission.
The funny thing is, that guy from Norway... the broccoli guy... accuses me of fanning the flames of celebrity-ism by talking about it.... but I think, it's ignoring the problem that's making it worse. If people don't talk about how celebrity-ism, and the mass media are keeping us from discussing important problems in society, then those important problems will just fester... and I think that's what's been happening in America. It's basically denial... and with every passing decade, I think this country is feeling it more and more, and is slowly destroying itself.
Not 100% sure what you mean about the "clincher"... are you saying that celebrity-ism has it's merits, because Pink Floyd were celebrities, and so they got lots of resources, which allowed them to take a year to make an amazing album (like Dark Side)? Yeah... no doubt, I agree with you. I think that's a separate topic... getting a lot of resources funneled your way because you are a talented, and know how to wield them, is different from mass media blackout, egos, and personality cults. I think Pink Floyd getting a bunch of money for studio time makes sense, and helped society add another great work of art to the roster (raises people up)... I think the mass media appealing to personality cults to stop people form thinking is hurting us (drags people down).
In any case, nice chatting with ya!
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
We could debate which celebrities deserve adoration/worship and based and what criteria, and as I get older I recognize less and less of these celebrities, but I don’t think it can be argued that the media isn’t giving enough coverage of all the economic, social, and political turmoil in the world. Do you want everybody to be in a permanent bummer allowing for no distractions until all the world’s problems are solved?
-
Idonotlikebroccoli
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 12:29 pm
- Location: Norway
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
mylkoa: Firstly, apologies for the sarcastic tone earlier. I thought you were talking about this phenomenon from a much more simplistic angle.
I mostly ever hear about celebrities when they're portrayed in a negative light, at least in conversation. In other words, haters talk more about them than their fans do, it seems. When Justin Bieber came to Oslo, I was teaching a high school class, and while the girls kept it to themselves, the guys wouldn't shut up about how lame JB was.
Deaths are an exception though, and I guess people like to glorify the dead, and turn them into god figures. Prince was unhumanly talented. Hitler was unhumanly evil. I actually think glorification like that is kind of dehumanising. People do it with the dead, with authority figures, with attractive women, and it sets up an artificial distance between the observer and the subject of the glorification/objectification.
Getting educated on the numerous flaws of society would indeed be a very good thing. I know lots of reasons why people don't question their beliefs, assumptions and surroundings, but I still wish it were a much bigger part of our culture. Kids' "why"s shouldn't be silenced, and when adults are faced with ignorance as a result, they should be good role models and show kids (and fellow adults) that it's okay to not know everything, and to wonder about things.
I don't think celebrity culture is anything new, though. We used to have mythologies with fictional characters doing stupid shit, and now we have more or less the same with celebrities. Maybe it's a way of learning about stupid shit, in a safe situation, preventing you from harming yourself through doing too much of said stupid shit?
I mostly ever hear about celebrities when they're portrayed in a negative light, at least in conversation. In other words, haters talk more about them than their fans do, it seems. When Justin Bieber came to Oslo, I was teaching a high school class, and while the girls kept it to themselves, the guys wouldn't shut up about how lame JB was.
Deaths are an exception though, and I guess people like to glorify the dead, and turn them into god figures. Prince was unhumanly talented. Hitler was unhumanly evil. I actually think glorification like that is kind of dehumanising. People do it with the dead, with authority figures, with attractive women, and it sets up an artificial distance between the observer and the subject of the glorification/objectification.
Getting educated on the numerous flaws of society would indeed be a very good thing. I know lots of reasons why people don't question their beliefs, assumptions and surroundings, but I still wish it were a much bigger part of our culture. Kids' "why"s shouldn't be silenced, and when adults are faced with ignorance as a result, they should be good role models and show kids (and fellow adults) that it's okay to not know everything, and to wonder about things.
I don't think celebrity culture is anything new, though. We used to have mythologies with fictional characters doing stupid shit, and now we have more or less the same with celebrities. Maybe it's a way of learning about stupid shit, in a safe situation, preventing you from harming yourself through doing too much of said stupid shit?
-
Machinesworking
- Posts: 11421
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 9:30 pm
- Location: Seattle
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
mylkoa,
First rule of fight club.....
OK simple reality check here for you, I can agree with parts of what you're saying but not all of it. We are not fighting a war, there is no enemy, it's a discussion on the reasons why celebrity worship is a bad thing, and pointing out that talented people also benefit from this, ( Pink Floyd could spend a huge ton of money on the Wall etc. ) is not 100% disagreeing with you. It's setting up the idea that in a market dominated society celebrity can at times work to the betterment of the arts etc. I don't think that you can separate the money thrown at pop garbage from talented people, not in the sense of the market.
A more interesting to me anyway discussion is about how the music industry has turned around and pretty much stopped funneling money towards super groups in favor of flavor of the month fads and boy/girl groups made up of talented but not creative models. Beats Me made a point about Prince doing "the artist formerly known as" routine, what most people don't know is that was a reaction to contract disputes. Prince managed to get one of the better royalty rates of a famous musician, and IMO it was that something like 90% rate that had the industry decide that throw away artist of the month flavors were a better business model. Thing is people bought it, people ate up Limp Bizkit, Brittany Spears etc.
We live in the age of the 5 minutes of Fame reality that Andy Warhol talked about and the question I think consumers should be asking themselves is how many soup can paintings do we need? In the end of the day we get the product we demand, if the world really really wanted more Pink Floyds we would have asked for them, but instead we wanted simple escapist pop.
First rule of fight club.....
OK simple reality check here for you, I can agree with parts of what you're saying but not all of it. We are not fighting a war, there is no enemy, it's a discussion on the reasons why celebrity worship is a bad thing, and pointing out that talented people also benefit from this, ( Pink Floyd could spend a huge ton of money on the Wall etc. ) is not 100% disagreeing with you. It's setting up the idea that in a market dominated society celebrity can at times work to the betterment of the arts etc. I don't think that you can separate the money thrown at pop garbage from talented people, not in the sense of the market.
A more interesting to me anyway discussion is about how the music industry has turned around and pretty much stopped funneling money towards super groups in favor of flavor of the month fads and boy/girl groups made up of talented but not creative models. Beats Me made a point about Prince doing "the artist formerly known as" routine, what most people don't know is that was a reaction to contract disputes. Prince managed to get one of the better royalty rates of a famous musician, and IMO it was that something like 90% rate that had the industry decide that throw away artist of the month flavors were a better business model. Thing is people bought it, people ate up Limp Bizkit, Brittany Spears etc.
We live in the age of the 5 minutes of Fame reality that Andy Warhol talked about and the question I think consumers should be asking themselves is how many soup can paintings do we need? In the end of the day we get the product we demand, if the world really really wanted more Pink Floyds we would have asked for them, but instead we wanted simple escapist pop.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
Thanks. Now that I know you are a courteous person, you probably won't need to apologize again. I'm also sorry if I'm being a jerk in any way. And thanks for sharing your thoughts - these kinds of discussions and connections with other human beings is one of the best parts of life to me!Idonotlikebroccoli wrote:mylkoa: Firstly, apologies for the sarcastic tone earlier.
Funny... it's a mix isn't it? And I suppose it's very situational as to how we can fall on the spectrum. You have been exposed to a lot of celebrity-hating, while I have been exposed to a lot of celebrity-sentimentality...My Facebook was flooded with sentimental Prince stuff. In my city there were many different kinds of memorials... just last night, I was at the grocery store and Prince was on the cover of a magazine, staring at me while I was in line at the cashier... I guess that's why scientific studies are so great, because it goes beyond our anecdotal experience to get closer to the "truth" of what's actually happening out there... is there more sentimentality, or is their more hatred toward celebrities? I don't know. But, actually, in regards to my original comment - it doesn't matter whether there is more hatred or sentimentality towards celebrities... the fact that we are spending any mental attention on them is my central point... and I understand why you would think that I was "fanning the flame" here, because we a re talking about celebrity-ism... but I would add that I am not engaging in hating or loving a celebrity... I am talking about the activity of spend mental energy on someone I don't know personally... and also of dehumanizing a person into some kind of god-like figure, or super-human... which you talk about later...Idonotlikebroccoli wrote:I mostly ever hear about celebrities when they're portrayed in a negative light, at least in conversation. In other words, haters talk more about them than their fans do, it seems. When Justin Bieber came to Oslo, I was teaching a high school class, and while the girls kept it to themselves, the guys wouldn't shut up about how lame JB was.
I couldn't agree more. Dehumanizing is such a great word for it! I especially feel bad for attractive women, because I think people treat them differently, and so they aren't given as many good opportunities to have genuine inter-personal social interactions. It's like, how are you supposed to have an interaction with someone if they don't really see you, but instead, look only at one small part of you (in the case of an attractive woman, that would be her appearance)? Or how do you have an interaction with someone if they are trying to get something from you (in the case of an attractive woman, if someone were trying to take some sort of affection from her.... whether it be getting some sexual favor or simply holding her attention for a time)? It seems to me that isn't the most rewarding way of interacting with people.Idonotlikebroccoli wrote:Deaths are an exception though, and I guess people like to glorify the dead, and turn them into god figures. Prince was unhumanly talented. Hitler was unhumanly evil. I actually think glorification like that is kind of dehumanising. People do it with the dead, with authority figures, with attractive women, and it sets up an artificial distance between the observer and the subject of the glorification/objectification.
What do you think are some of the reasons people don't question their beliefs more?Idonotlikebroccoli wrote:Getting educated on the numerous flaws of society would indeed be a very good thing. I know lots of reasons why people don't question their beliefs, assumptions and surroundings, but I still wish it were a much bigger part of our culture. Kids' "why"s shouldn't be silenced, and when adults are faced with ignorance as a result, they should be good role models and show kids (and fellow adults) that it's okay to not know everything, and to wonder about things.
I'm a huge advocate for wonder
Yes... definitely not new... I think about heroes and epics... the first piece of literature we have is the Gilgamesh epic... which I still don't understand totally... but I don't think it's an accident that our stories start with dehumanization/celebrity-ism... and before that... it was more related to religion... ancestral worship... raising old leaders to the rank of gods and myth... I think one of the last things Thor Heyerdahl did was try to show that Oden may have been a real person, and had some connection with the lands near current-day Azerbaijan... maybe Oden was an early king/leader, and people made him into a god... I think this impulse in humans to glorify something and assign it mystical or super-natural power runs deep in humanity... and it relates to anthropocentricity.Idonotlikebroccoli wrote:I don't think celebrity culture is anything new, though. We used to have mythologies with fictional characters doing stupid shit, and now we have more or less the same with celebrities. Maybe it's a way of learning about stupid shit, in a safe situation, preventing you from harming yourself through doing too much of said stupid shit?
Maybe what we are really discussing is really a manifestation of the divide between passion-oriented superstition/religion and the cool hand of logic/reason?
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
beats me wrote:I don’t think it can be argued that the media isn’t giving enough coverage of all the economic, social, and political turmoil in the world.
I agree, the news pays it a fair amount of attention... but I think that attention could also viewed as lip-service. For example, Fergusson now has a black police-chief... and my local corporate news mentioned that last night... however, what they didn't mention is that the police and legislature here in Baltimore are quietly resisting the public's calls to place a civilian in the oversight boards that investigate instances of brutality within the department... to get that kind of news, you have to look at less mainstream media.
No. Nor do I want everybody in permanent denial about the state of the world. Extremism is not my dish.beats me wrote:Do you want everybody to be in a permanent bummer allowing for no distractions until all the world’s problems are solved?
All the world's problems will never be "solved". And I believe some "problems" are meant to exist.
And while I mentioned the Prince-meme, and media personality-cult-worship (aka "mourning sickness... love this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mourning_sickness) as a distraction from greater social issues... socio-political issues are actually not my primary interest.
My interest is connecting with people who have thoughts/insights to share on celebrity-ism and also not letting those people who engage in celebrity-ism dominate the airwaves (goes back to that good people stay silent and tyranny gains a foothold quote). I want to encourage an awareness of celebrity-ism, and maybe decrease it's influence, because I think celebrity-ism may be impeding the formation of actualized individuals and therefore, impeding community formation...
The "world's problems" are beyond my scope...
But here, on the Ableton forum... maybe we can make a stronger community
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
Machinesworking wrote:mylkoa, First rule of fight club.....
Always the case, yes?Machinesworking wrote: OK simple reality check here for you, I can agree with parts of what you're saying but not all of it.
Agreed... it's not a "war"... that's just an analogy to communicate easier. Please don't mistake me as a fanatic or a zealot. I don't take this topic too seriously - it's just fun to discuss with calm, rational peopleMachinesworking wrote:We are not fighting a war, there is no enemy, it's a discussion on the reasons why celebrity worship is a bad thing, and pointing out that talented people also benefit from this, ( Pink Floyd could spend a huge ton of money on the Wall etc. ) is not 100% disagreeing with you. It's setting up the idea that in a market dominated society celebrity can at times work to the betterment of the arts etc. I don't think that you can separate the money thrown at pop garbage from talented people, not in the sense of the market.
And yes, I think I understand what you are saying about the money thing, and that's a great insight that I had not considered before. Thanks for bringing it up.
Interesting. I can't say I know much about how the music industry spends its money. How do you learn about that. Do you have some books to recommend? Or have you worked in this field? Or do you know people that do? I met a man who told me he worked as a record producer for a big label for a few years... the most interesting thing I can remember from that conversation is that he told me record companies will invest lots of money (100's of thousands) in recording a band, and so forth, and then they will "never do anything" with the recording...Machinesworking wrote: A more interesting to me anyway discussion is about how the music industry has turned around and pretty much stopped funneling money towards super groups in favor of flavor of the month fads and boy/girl groups made up of talented but not creative models. Beats Me made a point about Prince doing "the artist formerly known as" routine, what most people don't know is that was a reaction to contract disputes. Prince managed to get one of the better royalty rates of a famous musician, and IMO it was that something like 90% rate that had the industry decide that throw away artist of the month flavors were a better business model. Thing is people bought it, people ate up Limp Bizkit, Brittany Spears etc.
Was Andy Warhol the one who said that? He fascinates me... carrying around a reel-to-reel recorder... I've overheard some interesting conversations that I wish I could have recorded, and sampled, and put on a techno song...Machinesworking wrote: We live in the age of the 5 minutes of Fame reality that Andy Warhol talked about and the question I think consumers should be asking themselves is how many soup can paintings do we need? In the end of the day we get the product we demand, if the world really really wanted more Pink Floyds we would have asked for them, but instead we wanted simple escapist pop.
Yes... I get you on the masses wanting escapism... but at the same time, I wonder if maybe there aren't bands making epic works like Pink Floyd's wall... maybe not as grand as the movie, but musically speaking, there seem to be a lot of bands using synthesizers and orchestras... but I don't follow pop or rock that much... you might know more about that than me.
It's hard though, too, because I like a lot of unconventional-disco, and a lot of people claim that to be escapist... and sometimes I think they are right... other times, I think it's just happy music and got great dance-grooves. I think "Beats me" kinda touched on this... not being in permanent bummer... no, I don't think a permanent bummer is the solution... but one must be vigilant of denial.
I have been reading a little about stoic philosophy recently... I still don't know much about it, but that philosophy seems like it might address that question about balancing the "bummer" with the "denial"or "escapist" ideas... I think it might be a balance between cynicism, skepticism, and stoicism...
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
i remember when Prince did this and rolling my eyes. it was a long time ago and i was more into rock and heavy metal at the time... so there was nothing he could do that would have impressed me. looking back on it now (now that my musical taste has evolved into something more broad) i realize what he was doing. by not releasing anything as "Prince" he was effectively sidestepping the label's iron grasp on his music. to be honest, i think more highly of him for it now. couple that with the fact that he was giving away his music the last few years and he definitely deserves a tip of the hat, IMO.mylkoa wrote:And Prince had another spoiled brat moment when he wanted to be known as "the artist formerly knows as"... I seem to remember mass media making fun of him for that... and now they can't stop exploiting his death...
having said all that, i refuse to jump on the "i'm such a huge Prince fan" bandwagon. i cannot think of one single person who was ever playing one of his albums in their car or home, but when i look at my facebook feed... it would seem that most of the people i know kept a Prince track in every playlist... i call bullshit.
i agree that every time a huge celebrity dies they become more famous and the nostalgia factor seems to pull people in like tuna in a giant net. no matter how far an artist may have distanced himself from older releases, marketing, and prior record deals... i guess the labels get the last laugh in that regard.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
Totally, H20... you brought up him giving away his music... I have trouble admiring rich people who give things away... I feel very strange judging someone as generous when they wear a piece of jewelry that could have paid for an Associates degree, or fed a remote village in a poor country for a year... doesn't seem right.
Re: Anti-Celebrity. Anti-Fame.
True, but it was his music that made him rich and you should at least be able to tip your hat halfheartedly if you consider the notion that he too realized that he had made enough money off it.
another possible contender for bonus points; Prince would show up unannounced in cities/towns and have a concert a day or two later. the proceeds from that would be donated to charity. he did it nearby at the Fox Theatre in Oakland and then donated the money to the public schools in Oakland. i think it was to the music programs, but i'm a little hazy on that... schools at the very least. that's not a bad thing. he could have taken the money and run like Steve Miller Band would.
another possible contender for bonus points; Prince would show up unannounced in cities/towns and have a concert a day or two later. the proceeds from that would be donated to charity. he did it nearby at the Fox Theatre in Oakland and then donated the money to the public schools in Oakland. i think it was to the music programs, but i'm a little hazy on that... schools at the very least. that's not a bad thing. he could have taken the money and run like Steve Miller Band would.