didn't really mean to compare Cube's music to Dylan's music, just the reaction some people (and obviously not the same exact people) have/had to it (them?). It feels a little similar.
I do think "extreme" popular musics and the related pop subcultures have affected the corporate world, mostly in good ways. It seems to me that extreme and/or eccentric points of view are valued more now than thirty years ago. They may be rarely acted upon directly, but they do sometimes skew actions in a punk/rap kind of way, in an anti-corporate kind of way, which is again, IMO, mostly good and often what is necessary for what we call "innovation".
Agreed, there is no room for criminal behaviour (of any sort) anywhere, and just like the Pistols and the Damned and their "ilk" sometimes went too far, so do some rappers. But it is a message. It's a message that gets discussions going, and isn't that what Art is all about anyway? As I read about what is considered great Art today, I read that at the time of it's creation, there is one word that shows up pretty consistently: obscene.
It seems that there is a pattern we are failing to recognize.
The posts you linked to appear to attempt to rationalize what is essentially censorship. Censorship because someone in power (Oprah) doesn't like what is being said. Yes, Oprah has every right to talk or not talk to whomever she pleases, but please, don't offend me by trying to rationalize this as anything other than base censorship. As we learn from history, whenever a voice is intentionally quietened, that voice usually has something to say which needs to be heard.
Is this merely an ongoing argument? Perhaps, but if so, I wonder why that is? I wonder if it's because the argument never gets played out? I wonder if it's because those in the house find what those in the field are saying is too uncomfortable and just turn a deaf ear? If so, is it much of a surprise that those in the field have little choice but to yell louder and with more extreme subject matter in order to get heard?
no subject
I do think "extreme" popular musics and the related pop subcultures have affected the corporate world, mostly in good ways. It seems to me that extreme and/or eccentric points of view are valued more now than thirty years ago. They may be rarely acted upon directly, but they do sometimes skew actions in a punk/rap kind of way, in an anti-corporate kind of way, which is again, IMO, mostly good and often what is necessary for what we call "innovation".
Agreed, there is no room for criminal behaviour (of any sort) anywhere, and just like the Pistols and the Damned and their "ilk" sometimes went too far, so do some rappers. But it is a message. It's a message that gets discussions going, and isn't that what Art is all about anyway? As I read about what is considered great Art today, I read that at the time of it's creation, there is one word that shows up pretty consistently: obscene.
It seems that there is a pattern we are failing to recognize.
The posts you linked to appear to attempt to rationalize what is essentially censorship. Censorship because someone in power (Oprah) doesn't like what is being said. Yes, Oprah has every right to talk or not talk to whomever she pleases, but please, don't offend me by trying to rationalize this as anything other than base censorship. As we learn from history, whenever a voice is intentionally quietened, that voice usually has something to say which needs to be heard.
Is this merely an ongoing argument? Perhaps, but if so, I wonder why that is? I wonder if it's because the argument never gets played out? I wonder if it's because those in the house find what those in the field are saying is too uncomfortable and just turn a deaf ear? If so, is it much of a surprise that those in the field have little choice but to yell louder and with more extreme subject matter in order to get heard?
Dinna Ken. Maybe.