I'm very progressive in some ways but I do think progressives make this particular problem worse, often with good intentions. Both sides are equally NIMBY but liberals also have:
- More environmental regulations that can be used by NIMBY.
- Attempts to solve the using various forms of rent control, which make it worse.
- Related: conservatives favor less regulation, which leads to more construction.
- Liberals hate for (or at least distrust of) landlords. Some of this is well-deserved but I've seen liberals oppose good policies because it will "help landlords".
Lastly, home owners--including liberals--like to see the value of their property go up and tend to favor policies that make it so. It would be nice if we could get people to stop looking at their homes as financial investments.
And despite saying that they're the party of YIMBY, in practice we can clearly see that Democrats simply aren't. They'll say that they allowed ADUs, but then Dallas will come along and build 10,000 homes in the time it took Seattle to simply debate ADUs.
At some point you have to look at the actual results of policy.
I do find them cloying at times. I was using Gemini to iterate over a script and every time I asked it to make a change it started a bunch of responses with "that's a smart final step for this task! ...".
If the Ramones put their name on all sorts of merchandise does that make them sellouts?
I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.
The concept of "selling out" requires you to have some core values which you and your audience share. If you're a hard rock band and you make a cringe disco album because that's what the record label told you to do, that could be seen as selling out. If you're an anarchist crust punk and you get signed to a big label that could be selling out. If you're an underground DJ and you do the soundtrack for a big movie that could be selling out.
I don't think most music artists have the necessary relationship with their audience to "sell out", because their music isn't ideological and they don't have a real relationship with their fans. As famous sell-out Laura Jane Grace sang, the content is so easily attainable that the culture is disposable.
consider it from the perspective of those who have no art. it's like a threat of decapitation for people who never had a head. headlessness is the norm and carries no fear
I believe in the idea that if you really do the hell out of something, you can make up for a lot of shortcomings. Quantity and spirit can substitute for quality in almost all artistic pursuits.
Here's Bill Withers on selling out: “Sellout… I’m not crazy about the word. We’re all entrepreneurs. To me, I don’t care if you own a furniture store or whatever – the best sign you can put up is SOLD OUT.”
> Bill Withers on selling out: “Sellout… I’m not crazy about the word. We’re all entrepreneurs.
I think this is the prior that not everyone shares. Yeah if you consider yourself an entrepeneur that has no values except transactional economic perforamnce then its tautological that selling everything is good and the best.
If you however consider yourself an artist, if you think the comercialisation of certain things is inmoral, if you think transactional relationships are hollow or even damaging... then the idea of selling everything as good is nauseating.
Punk in particular is pretty antithetical to the ideas of consumerism and commercialisation. So its a genre and cultural movement where selling out is not only possible, but heavy demonised.
Bill Withers would be juxtaposed to someone like Gil Scott Heron in terms of where their music stands. And he was described as such when he broke out
Will Layman on Scott-Heron said "In the early 1970s, Gil Scott-Heron popped onto the scene as a soul poet with jazz leanings; not just another Bill Withers, but a political voice with a poet's skill."
Maybe. There’s another meaning for sellout - an event that is all sold out.
That makes me wonder if the meaning of a sellout artist was an analogy to an event which became commercially popular, and was (literally) no longer accessible to long-term fans.
I also like the Ramones and my Ramones shirt. I was trying to implicitly say what Arkhaine_kupo above me has now said.
I suppose there's often another layer to it, which is that you might think your favorite band (or, say, Apple) has principles and will stick to expressing certain important things. But then they might lose sight of the principles and start churning out lowest common denominator shit for money. It's not as simple then as money=bad. It's more that money as the goal means you have no goal (and your corporate mission statement is a feeble apology for that).
Not only are the songs they wrote really good and catchy, Ramones are one of those bands where it sounds so easy anyone can do it but if you give it a try, you quickly find out it’s difficult to get the nuances right and your results, unlike theirs, sound crude and obviously amateurish.
Reminds me of a story about Giotto di Bondone, an artist who when called upon to prove his talent drew, freehand, a perfect circle. Something which seems simple, but which is actually very difficult.
But have you tried recording your version and also playing it in public and promoting it for decades? It’s possible that’s what is making the one thing sound like it has something hard to name, and the other one not.
Like if you are sloppy there is an element of randomness in the output, and any particular randomness will be difficult to replicate.
Punk is not easy, they were developing new techniques and song writing approaches. Otherwise you tell me why we talk of Ramones as being different from older rock like say Led Zeppelin. I will say by the time we get to bands like Minor Threat we have genuinely new song structural paradigms that never existed in rock music.
And to say nothing of course of the mechanical finesse and stamina required to play this kind of music.
for this stuff its mostly just a question of buy same gear really. they play a bit 'wild' so esp live it wasnt like super clean. but the sound is mostly having the right kit including recording gear / setup or live equipment etc. depending on what ur trying to do.
>I joke, of course, and I'm a big Ramones fan. I've had numerous iterations of that shirt over the years. I often use them as an example when discussing "what is good art?" They are one of the most influential bands of all time and yet they were terrible musicians.
This makes me to wonder why do you and other people like them and why were them influential?
Isn't a band's purpose to produce good music and aren't people supposed to like musicians because they produce good music?
No, for many, wearing band shirts or adopting a specific style is signaling.
The Ramones were middle class kids, who started a band in high school when they were outcasts. They literally crafted new identities, writing tough lyrics and posing for photos with dour expressions. They weren’t cool enough being themselves so they became someone else.
The style is more important. It’s almost a point of pride that they don’t know how to play. Punk ironically has always been this way. There are so many rules you have to follow to be considered truly punk; you have to rebel in a very specific way. You have to look a certain way or you are out of the club.
In the 80s and 90s, your favorite bands were your identity. Cliques formed based on what obscure band you liked, and if nobody knew who they were, you were even cooler. Dig through the record store crates to find that rare vinyl nobody else has.
Hence more t-shirts sold than albums. Nobody gets your cool signal if you are silently rocking out with headphones on. You have the shirt; you were there, man.
Where I grew up, the misfits skull t-shirt was more iconic. Today you can buy it at Target.
What is good music though? I think the OP meant that the Ramones were terrible musicians in the sense that they were technically "good", i.e. most jazz musicians are much better technically. But that's the whole point the OP is making, to make good music you don't need to be technically good, i.e. to play the most complex guitar solos or be extremely accurate in your timing on the drums.
And that's the question, right? I like the ramones because they are loud, fast, and catchy. Is that enough to call it good music?
They were influential because they ushered in a new style of playing music. I remember reading an interview with The Clash and someone (Strummer?) mentioned that when the Ramones first played in london it was like a bomb going off. They were amazed that a band could play so fast and they all went home and tried to replicate it.
Originality is part of it. Today a band that sounded exactly like the ramones probably wouldn't go far because it's already been done.
> Isn't a band's purpose to produce good music and aren't people supposed to like musicians because they produce good music?
There are two definitions of "good" here, that are different.
1. "good musician" means a musician who is skilled or adept in their instrument. I'm separating this from if a musician is good at writing music.
2. "good music" means music that is entertaining or enjoyable.
The Ramones were not incredibly skilled in their instruments. They wrote music that many people found enjoyable. They were not good musicians, but they created good music.
Music is something you can do without formal training. Much like how you can be a terrible programmer but still create popular software. Just like how maybe what the world wanted at some moment was a slow PHP alternative to moveabletype, maybe the world also wanted sped up, stripped down, 60s girl band songs, without complicated rhythms and harmonies.
Not trying to say that Wordpress v1 was terrible software written by terrible programmers, but I hope you get my point.
I know most people don't take the concept of "selling out" seriously anymore, but the Ramones would not be sellouts for making Ramones merch. If they had turned into a hair metal band, where they would otherwise not make hair metal, just so they could sell a bunch of records, that would be selling out. Merely making money is not selling out
given the massive influence of 60s girl groups on the Ramones, I would say that getting one of the architects of that sound to produce their record is not selling out.
To stay on the "hair metal" example I gave, getting Mutt Lange circa Pyromania to produce a Ramones record would be selling out.
How are they terrible musicians? They played their specific type of music extremely well. Like, technically better than most people will ever be at music. People loved seeing them play. I still enjoy their records. So, what is terrible?
Maybe it was part of his schtick but johnny often bragged about not practicing. He wanted the concerts to be raw. The mistakes were part of the art.
I played guitar for a while and didn't have much trouble playing them and I was barely adequate at best.
The hardest song for me was California Sun. I just couldn't figure it out until I realized it had 4 chords instead of three. I learned later that it was a cover.
I guess with them touring and playing basically non-stop a certain kind of that is inevitable.
Their concert frequency was on par with the otherwise known as most prolific band ever, The Beach Boys. It's just that The Ramones' members all died around third of the way (~20 years of touring vs 60).
The Beach Boys also unabashedly liked money. I saw The Beach Boys - what was left of them anyway - with one the original members talking on stage basically talking about how he still did touring because he liked driving around in a Bentley.
Yeah, punk was a bit of a rejection of the polish of the big bands of the time. In a sense, the "horrible" was sort of the point. And for the shock value. But did that really mean they were horrible? Probably everyone kind of sucks at first. But it's hard not to improve your skills once you have got to a point where you have done a certain number of shows because you created a sustainable cash flow to support it.
There was an interview with Joey (maybe in the greatest hits liner notes?) where he said at the beginning they were trying to cover their favorite songs from the 50s and 60s but they couldn't figure them out. So they wrote their own that were easy (my word) enough to play.
Imo they were terrible musicians but a world class band.
It's a commercial act, the 'punk' costumes carefully chosen for the right signalling, by a couple of middle class kids. What's with this idea that your taste in music must spring from the purest and rawest authenticity, preferably (in no particular order) poor, rebellious, substance abusing, ethnic, and so on. Leading to all these musical acts styling themselves like that.
The Ramones were sellouts and posers, just like most bands. Wearing them on a t-shirt to signal 'punk', the joke's on you. It's an "industry of cool", like Jack Black's character says in Almost Famous.
Was Jack Black in Almost Famous? Are you thinking of PSH. I've mixed them up in my head myself, and I have no clue why. I was a Tenacious D fan from day 1, so it's not like they're 2 actors I'm only vaguely familiar with. And they aren't super similar in many ways. Yet they're somehow interchangeable in my movie memories.
How delightfully cynical. Instead of thinking taste in music “must” spring from your cynical take on what authenticity us (which I agree is impossible to define and almost a useless term at this point), maybe people just… like the music, and it somehow speaks to them. Musical taste is famously subjective and entirely down to what music you heard before etc
I'm sorry but this is silly. I didn't vote for Obama either time but there is no comparison between Trump and Obama. Nothing Obama did had the negative impact like Trump's attack on Iran.
I don't think people understand how incoherent Trump is and some of that is because news agencies like the NYT translate some of his statements into something that makes sense. When I listen to his speeches or read the transcripts he is often off the rails. His posts on Truth Social are insane.
Compare this headline to recent statements he's made about the war. Have we won the war? Or will be sending troops to Kharg? Is Iran's military 100% obliterated? Or do we need NATO to help patrol Hormuz? Is this a war or an "excursion"? He has said the war is winding down but also intensifying. He's made all of these conflicting statements and more, sometimes one right after the other.
Here's an article that puts it better than I can. I don't think the NYT does it out of malice but they are trying to appear balanced. If a journalist accurately reported on Trump they could come across as horribly biased. They assume some good faith and are unequipped to deal with trump.
From an exterior viewpoint, all this portrayal of Trump as either insane or an idiot is as useless and dangerous as the sanewashing.
I believed Trump was insane/an idiot during his 1st mandate. I no longer believe so.
I firmly believe he is an ingenious antagonist with ulterior motives using advanced manipulation and destabilization techniques. He moved the Overton window so far and fast that the world doesn't know how to react, and any reaction will be too little too late.
Trump is taking the USA's economical/social structure apart at a frightening pace, and unfortunately a lot hinge on the USA elsewhere.
He should not be seen as incompetent/unfit for office, he should be seen as a hostile entity to get rid of yesterday.
And I fear it's too late, the USA won't react until he's made the "necessary constitution changes" and been elected for his 3rd mandate.
Getting rid of Europe's ties with the USA will be arduous but I don't see any alternative
Losing weight is one of the prime examples of the difference between simple and easy. We've evolved over millions of years to try to gain weight; reversing that is hard.
False dichotomy. There are other ways to deal with Iran that don't involve starting an ill conceived (and illegal) war that kills school children and possibly (probably?) plunges the world economy into recession. It is highly unlikely that the current military action will result in a pacified Iran.
Why do people think that since Iran is evil all actions against Iran are justified?
They're not old enough to remember the start of the war in Iraq, I imagine. For those who aren't: it was a barrage of justifications which were found to be untrue, especially the 45 minute claim which said Iraq could strike European targets within 45 minutes with chemical or biological weapons. The UN weapons inspector said this was nonsense, and so it proved to be - after the invasion.
I think this reasoning does not work for you because the word "woke" does not mean anything bad for you.
Let's use a different derogatory word to illustrate this same point. Imagine if using renewables was associated with being "communist" or "terrorist" or "a child molester". Remember how Bitcoin is often perceived, "it's used by criminals to buy drugs and pay for hitmen, so we should not endorse it, even if it might have some good uses".
This is how about half of the country _perceives_ "woke".
I'm not saying it's a correct behavior, but that's how many people perceive it. So working on its brand and marketing is probably a good idea to disconnect the concept of renewables from the word "woke".
Renewable energy and EVs are technologies. They aren't woke, communist, or any of the other silly adjectives being applied. Conservatives are against these technologies strictly because liberals are for it. Only the dumbest people in charge.
- More environmental regulations that can be used by NIMBY.
- Attempts to solve the using various forms of rent control, which make it worse.
- Related: conservatives favor less regulation, which leads to more construction.
- Liberals hate for (or at least distrust of) landlords. Some of this is well-deserved but I've seen liberals oppose good policies because it will "help landlords".
Lastly, home owners--including liberals--like to see the value of their property go up and tend to favor policies that make it so. It would be nice if we could get people to stop looking at their homes as financial investments.
reply