not logged in
| re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 09:45 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| In reply to: | Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - TommyCool 07:22 pm UTC 06/11/07 |
> Wouldnt that be great ??!!! > Hell, NO !!!! > Why, thou may ask ? > Well, here's a little something i was just thinking of > this afternoon while listening to Formation Of The Pack > (oh what brilliant song it is) > Where's the magic and mystery in Rock N Roll today??? There is alot of hyperbole built into every kind of interest group, and one that has inappropriately entered this hall of logic is that there should be mystery in Rock and Roll? There was no mystery in Rock and Roll, just a beat. Rock and Roll is a sound, different from all other sounds that ever came before it. In the nineteen fifties, the youth were listening to music that had two different types of rhythms to it, the big bands with their slow moving and dance inspiring numbers, slow pop of standard ballads, and that was it, in terms of popular music. Classical has been classical. Then in the fifties, two formations of beat culture formed, one the purists and one the rebels, and nobody knew which was which. The purists would be a small group of poet/percussionist pre-jazz creators of what was called Beatnik music. The rebels would be those pre-rock creators of rhythm and blues, rockabilly, the beat as the backbone to the instrumentation, to the arrangements, guiding the tempo, emphasizing the drama, in what became known as Rock and Roll. The difference between Beatniks and Rock and Rollers were as wide as today Jazz is from Rock and Roll. Beatnik Jazz, and Dixieland Jazz, plus other Jazz forms are those music forms which take a seed of feeling and flows down the river of a consciousness and eminates the sounds of it, so they both use some of the same terminology, grooving, in the groove, which is in the place of the flow of that art. In the early sixties one part of Jazz that was popular was that which started as a vocal tune of the old style, and then grew itself into a free-flowing set of vocalizations which were solo-worthy called Scat. Mel Torme, Ella Fitzerald, these are the names that were most on peoples' minds when thinking of Scat artists. But what Jazz lacks in the bulk of it, due to its very nature, is order. There is no order, and there is no enforcement of structure in the regimental beats of rock and roll. But rock and roll is totally different, in that it lets someone move and sway to their own feelings. In Jazz, the artists' feelings stir the pot, in Rock and Roll, the artists' inspiration spurs the feelings of their audience. So there is no mystery about rock and roll, just a set of beats that moves its audience. If you want to add a mysterious culture to rock and roll, then you are circumventing the music altogether and creating a sub-culture which has nothing to do with it. >Gone > !! Totally dead and forgotten... Who killed it ? INTERNET > !! Yes, i am myself a randomly user of it and probably had > a different lifestyle if it wasnt there. But look.... just > google away and you wil find everything you want to know > about your fave artist. No, that is an illusion and a fallacy. We can find only those things that have not been sufficiently controlled by the disseminators, or the hosts, or the bots, or the writers of the web. Then, of those things we can only find those things that have been written thus far, or uploaded thus far. Someone who uses the net as extensively as myself knows the limitations that the internet brings along with its expansion. I don't have to go to as many libraries or physical archives as I would have had to if I was doing my research pre-internet, and I find that there are physical archives that have treasure troves of worth beyond what is available on the internet. Further, there is an element of control on the internet. If someone is well enough connected they can keep things about them suppressed, or things that they want suppressed, suppressed. You think there's limitless resources on the internet, but there is just a greater sea of resources than without it. Along with the freedom to post on the internet so too there is the freedom to defraud on the internet, and so discernment in our modern society has become more important than it has ever been in generations before ours. I can find sources which discuss history of my family. On the internet at various times I could go back and trace this one's line, or that one's marriage, and how this got mixed with that, and how this got separated from the other. I can see the history of my family, only to the extent that someone allows the history of my family to be seen. There are those politically positioning themselves by using one set of propaganda against the advent of another form of propaganda, against the standard and recognized forms of historical understandings; and then there are those who post their stories based on the things they have heard, but had no particular interest in enough to look into. Proliferations of untruths are often masquerading as authoritative. The exercise of knowing the difference lies in looking into the areas claimed and finding the proper stream of events, logics and the histories, which when found on the internet, is found with difficulty. The illusion of information sometimes undermines actual information. >Everybody knows everything about > everbody. No, you do not know everything about anybody. You find the wealth of selected tidbits of everyone that then gives work to imaginations to form whole structures upon but are doomed to be different than either everything, or anything accurate. And many of the tidbits are themselves products of the processed cheese of misgivings. >Not Jimmy, no..... > Always mr. mystery, mr. mystique, mr. unreachable. No, he is not always that. Some people like him to be a mystery, and so he has created a mystery, and some people like him to be obscure and so he has created of himself a stream of obscurity, but he is none of the above. Private, yes, but in a normal sense, not in an abnormal sense, given his own will of it. He both likes the background and the limelight, depending upon how diffused or balanced the limelight is, and he has chosen to place himself in diffused limelights, as opposed to blinding swells of spotlights. >I > praise him for that. Seven hails to mr. Steinman !! Not being aware of situations, you could not know what to praise him for or not to praise him for. Until you see what lies in the limelights, or in the world of media disseminations, media distractions, and media fallacies, you cannot know what to laud a person for, in or out of it. There is no substitution for either sympathy, empathy, or remote respect of someones' individual life. But to judge someone for the lack of information about them, and giving them full credit for that, is absurd. > We all have 1000 questions we want to ask him, Where are they, where I myself have called upon you to post questions you would ask Jim? Unreplied. You have no questions for him that you really want to have answered. If you have questions for him, ask him questions. Don't just say you have questions. Don't bullshit that line. >including > myself. Good, ask them. >Just read the board and you get loads of > interesting questions and wouldnt we all like Jim to > respond to them. If Jim sees you reject his representatives, why should he put himself out there? I don't see any particularly interesting questions about Jim. People here are interested in the music, not about Jim himself. He somehow has developed here a value that has unreal dimensions, and that is not appropriate when dealing person-to-person. If Jim saw really worthy questions to answer, he may answer them without going through me. But in the meantime, whether you particularly enjoy it or not, I'm it to the extent he isn't. >Hell, yeah ! But then.... what if Jim > would answer all our desirable questions ? Where's the > mystique ? Where's the fantasy ? Mystique and fantasy are destroyers in the context where they destroy realities. There are those fantasies which inspire, and those fantasies which destroy. The kind of fantasy you demand is destructive to reality, and the idea that this fantasy would be desirable over reality is insanity. >What if there is nothing > left to dream about ? Rock and roll dreams come through...there is always something magic, there is always something new. >Jim gets it, oh yes. How do you know Jim gets what? How do you even know he knows how to put bread into a toaster? Well, he does, but how do you know it? >He knows the > true meaning and essence of Rock N Roll. THE MYSTERY. THE > FANTASY. And he is the ultimate king of it ! Seven hails > to JIM STEINMAN !!! You are bullshitting rocks, not listening to rock. > > Sorry if i bored you all to death with this... But just > had to get it of my chest, heheh. When you have finished getting this off of your chest, try to put some smarts into your head. > And yes, i am crazy.... crazy about jim's songs that is. As I've said. You abandon Jim for something that is not of this world. When you do, really do see this, you will see that doing so cuts you off from yourself. Not just about Jim, but about everything. | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - pidunk 10:21 am UTC 06/12/07 |
| Next: | re: Jim Steinman on MTV Cribs - TommyCool 04:33 pm UTC 06/12/07 |
| Thread: |
|