BushJr was a bad precedent.

I did accidentally type "president" there and corrected it before hitting Submit.

Again, asserting it doesn't make it so. At some point you have to acknowledge the preeminence of vox populi, and popular culture would be a good place to start. I don't think we need music rapped about bitches and ho's, or sung by them, but it's not up to me. It's what the kids want.



That presupposes I'm using marxian labor time to begin with, and then warping the concept for my own purposes. If I'm not using marxian time in the first place then I might actually be dealing with concepts foreign to someone who only goes by marxian labor time.

Someone who is productive will have a markedly larger influence more often than someone who isn't. That's another fact.



Ok, for all of us who don't have access to Earth-2, do you have anything to back that up with? They don't play the Dylan version much anywhere. Vox populi, remember? And you missed my point that Hendrix' arrangement was long-thought out and tinkered with before he judged it complete. ["Angel", "Purple Haze" and a number of other gems would seem to disprove your claim about his songwriting as well, but it's all subjective]





Only a fool dismisses anyone who thinks in a way he disapproves of as fools.

Are there no other possibilities for rock aesthetics in your mind? Pleasant memories of parking by the lake when there was not another car in sight? A sense of freedom, riding out on the highway, looking for adventure? Finding a sense of community in the funniest places, like a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac? An impotent yell that the new boss is the same as the old? Feeling so lonely you could die? These and a thousand more examples that inspired rock fans of all ages, all the province of fools?

That's pretty fucking dismissive of anything outside your own aesthetic interests, without even a "that's just my opinion, I could be wrong" along with it. If Van Hagar encourages someone to take a walk on the wild side, I can't for the life of me see a claim that it's an invalid representation of anything rock'n'roll stands for. You don't like it, fine, have fun with that. But there's certainly no reason to dismiss every single human being on Earth who thinks differently as "fools" for no better reason that they think differently from you.

So what is marxian labor time anyway? Is that like "In Soviet Russia, time kills YOU"?



So is this an audio-quality sound snob sort of thing? Some people have elaborate stereo systems, some people find themselves unable to listen to old scratchy recordings, some like Robert Crumb are interested precisely because of that poor sound quality [among other things, not intended as a summation of Crumb's musical opinions.] That's cool, but there are other aspects of rock music which people find at least as valid.

What kids tend to want is what's being produced in mass quantities. As you say: "Someone who is productive will have a markedly larger influence more often than someone who isn't." Quality and content have little to do with it. Drown the market. That's what celebrating productivity alone gets us.


So everything not played on the radio, TV or movies was voted out? And you only like what you feel others like?


Wiki.



That's just your opinion. You could be wrong.

In my experience, kids are fine with one-of-a-kind products that took many years to bring to fruition, but a marketplace is where they're going to find more of what they want, a natural human desire. A toy store is better than a porcelain doll that's a hundred years old, a candy store is better than a single immaculate jelly bean [or Gummi Venus De Milo :)]



They know what they like and what they don't like just as much as you do. For you to assert otherwise is condescending and elitist, whether your target is a 14-year old audience or a 40-year old audience. They think there is quality and content and unless you become lord god king of musicdom, that will never change. Live with it.



(1) the market is not a zero-sum game
(2) acknowledging the difference between productivity and non-productivity is not "celebrating productivity alone" no matter how much you want to believe otherwise
(3) what does celebrating "non-productivity" get you? Without productivity, do you have a marketplace for anybody to earn a living from?
(4) just realized, I haven't even touched on the craftsmanship part of productivity. How did I get this far without even acknowledging the aspect of art which doesn't improve without time-intensive labor?



How do you infer either of those from anything I've said? Dylan's version currently ranks at 28,991 on amazon's mp3 ranking, not bad for a two and a half minute ditty from a 45 year old record. I'm sure there's a lot of other songs which don't sell anywhere near as well.

Hendrix' version is in the two thousand sellers for the same chart, so I guess people just want it more, so isn't it a good thing that they can pay for it if they choose to?



Really? Why do you have such an inversion to using your own words to relate a concept? You accused me of using marxian time (and of getting it wrong), so at least writing down your definition would detail the thinking that led you to see the connection with marxian labor time.



At least I admit it, what's your excuse? That you villify people who think differently and deny any validity to their existence? At least you don't support productivity or you'd be dangerous.

So 14 year olds have listened to anything from Xenakis to Texas Blues in the 20s to Mozart to Haitian folk music to Lady Gaga and come to the conclusion that what they really like out of all these choices is the last on the list? That's a real blinkered existence you live.

It's elitist to presume everyone's taste just happens to correspond to what the culture machine is producing. Marketing is about limiting choices, not expanding them. All the rock stations in America didn't just happen to start playing the same songs.

Exactly. When I was kid it was a big deal to hear "Bohemian Rhapsody" on the radio. I'd hear it maybe once every couple of months. Now it's on every day.

Finding what can repeat the most times for popular consumption is what it's all about. That's what Van Halen was trying to achieve when he recruited Hagar. 5150 was the first Van Halen album to hit #1, they'd only gone as high as #2 with DLR. I know that because EVH himself pointed it out in an interview. Why would an artist care about such a thing? When Van Hagar's sales flagged, he tried the same thing again. Backfired that time, though.

Irrelevant. They know what they like and dislike as much as you do, and they are as entitled to their views as much as you are. Admittedly, they are slightly more willing than you to acknowledge that other people's views have validity, but I'm sure you do everything possible to beat that out of them whenever you have the chance. Since your views are the only ones that matter to anybody anywhere at any time.



Culture isn't a machine. Believing it is limits your thinking, which helps explain your perspective.



Is that why I can't get Enya's "Only If" on amazon when they have her other albums and compilations available? Wait, why's a rock fan like me looking for new age music in the first place? How did I even hear of it, or her, if marketing has limited my choices so much?



Neither did all the non-rock stations, and there's plenty of them. They all rely on a large amount of material, whatever they broadcast, and give preference to producers who can fill the broadcast day.

Ha, no. That's because you're too stupid to find it.

You're really quite dumb, you see.

No, it isn't irrelevant. Kids don't have the experience of listening to much outside of what's forcefed to them on what's left of MTV. Also, they're being forcefed.



You are really very ignorant of how radio programming works. Even occasionally a DJ will let a snide comment about it slip. Once I heard a DJ say on his station's Two-fer Tuesday, "Coming up after the break we've got a two-fer from The Edgar Winter Group... and you know what two it's going to be."