Against rock

Anushka Asthana, having spent £90 on a ticket for Guns N' Roses in the week (my ticket for the goddess cost £14, and I got a seat) asks: "why are rock fans so stupid?"
Simple. It's because they cause unjustified inequalities, retard social mobility, favour charisma over ability, uniformity over diversity, and help sustain capitalism.
In looking for "stars", people to worship, they generate inequalities of  power and income.
For sure, there's nothing wrong with this if the stardom arises from inequalities in ability. But in rock "music" it doesn't. Axl Rose is indistinguishable from thousands of other long-haired shouty men. He's just benefited from Gergaud and Verardi's version (pdf) of "superstar economics", whereby some people get wealth and fame simply through the dumb luck of large groups of people coming to believe, arbitrarily, that they are cultural icons.
Put it this way. I suspect that, given a few weeks of the right training, I could play guitar well enough to appear in a rock band; I'm coming from a running start. I have not the foggiest hope of ever being as good as David Russell or Davy Graham or Martin Simpson or she of whom I am unworthy to speak.
What rock music does is favour superficiality over substance - charisma over genuine ability. It's no coincidence that so many rock stars - Chris Martin, Mick Jagger, Bruce Dickinson, Busted, pretty much any 60s prog-rockers (though some of them could, in fairness, actually play) - went to private school, whereas hardly any folk musicians did so. Private school gives people a confidence disproportionate to their ability. That's what matters in rock.
Worse still, this inequality isn't merely of income. It's of power and prestige. So, Axl Rose thinks he can keep fans waiting two hours, and Bono thinks he can walk round in shades looking like a bell-end and lecturing us all to death. And no-one tells them to feck off.
And then there's the groupthink. Rock music gains much of its power from the communal experience. It needs a crowd.
Put it this way. If Guns N' Roses performed in front of two men in a pub, they'd look ridiculous. If Kate Rusby or the McGarrigle sisters or the sublime being did so, it would be a magical experience.
This groupthink generates conformity, not only as fans look for the same bands, but as wannabe rock stars emulate others: can anyone really be bothered to distinguish between Coldplay and all their imitators? Not only does this lead to a bland conformity, it also makes life easy for the music business.
Rock fans, then, are an offense against all that I hold dear.
I'll leave you with the killer argument. I rest my case.

Comments

[dsquared]

[If Guns N' Roses performed in front of two men in a pub, they'd look ridiculous]

This one at least isn't true. I saw Slash at a small venue in Detroit five years ago and he was fantastic.

[Steve B]

Sorry but if you think Coldplay are "Rock" then your whole argument just came falling down!

Now if you were to say, for example, Thrice, Killswitch Engage, My Chemical Romance or alexisonfire were "Rock"....you'd be right ;-)

[Mark Holland]

"Why are rock fans so stupid?"

But wasn't there a sort of self selecting stupidity in the room to begin with? I mean really, what sort of a plonker would pay money to see the Axl Rose Band currently pretending to be Guns And Roses?

[MatGB]

Why are Stadium rock fans so stupid would be a valid question.

But most rock fans I know prefer their gigs small, personal, and loud. They also like a bit of variety, and new bands, especially with a new take on something, are sought out. 'twas Mitch Benn who sang Everything sounds like Coldplay. He was right, if you only listen to the charts.

But then, what do I know?

Mat
Hon. Pres., Exeter RocSoc

[David Evans]

Imagine you liked 'rock' music rather than folk music. Imagine you liked Guns 'N Roses rather than Kate Rusby. Imagine you'd been waiting 10 plus years for their follow-up to your favourite record of all time. Bearing in mind that you are the biggest Guns 'N Roses fan in the world, would you not be tempted to fork out £90 to see them? You may not get another chance to do so. You're 35 years old, all you want is to have a little fun for one night, to forget about your dreary job, forget about whether the kids have brushed their teeth or not. You want to be your 18 year old self, just for an hour or two.

Also, please take guitar lessons for a few weeks to pick up the rudiment skills and start a band. Hell, I'll even teach you! An appearance on 'Faking It' may beckon. A couple of other points about that: Since when has being technically proficient equated with writing good music? You can pick pretty much any genre of music (except jazz, obviously) and find pieces where the chord progressions are so simple that a child could have written them. The Blues (which is a 'folk' music, i.e. music of the people from the Missisippi Delta) is based around 3 chords, a fool can play it, I can play it! The reason why any music is worthy of our attention is because of the feel and the feelings that it evokes. Not because someone uses different tunings, ernie ball thin gauge strings or can play all 1200 plus chords in 50 different ways with their eyes closed and their fingertips chopped off.

The other point is that you obviously are not aware of many rock musicians, there are some wonderfully gifted people out there. Are you seriously saying Jim O'Rourke has no discernible musical ability? Or Thurston Moore? Try playing what these people can play after a few weeks practice. I just feel that your views are a little blinkered, though I am aware that you probably dashed this blog off in 5 minutes rather then spend a couple of hours racking your brain trying to think of someone other than the obvious e.g. Jagger, Bono, Martin etc.

"Private school gives people a confidence disproportionate to their ability. That's what matters in rock." I assume that you, like I, went to a comprehensive school. That doesn't stop me thinking I am better at something than I really am (like commenting on blogs). Isn't it more to do with your upbringing? This can come from either being encouraged, supported a lot or from being discouraged. Many people I know like this, and I know too many for my liking, use this air of confidence as a defence mechanism, but that's another (long) discussion, I suppose.

"this inequality isn't merely of income. It's of power and prestige. So, Axl Rose thinks he can keep fans waiting two hours" You may get that sort of behaviour from Axl Rose, but if you went to see Madonna or Bon Jovi or some other big pop/rock act you can guarantee there would be a strict timetable. Go and see any indie band in your local public toilet and they'd also be on time - licencing laws insist upon it. Axl Rose is a 45 year old rebel without a clue, anyone who would have gone to that gig could not be at all surprised. He's not getting onstage until he's had his heroin/blowjob from a groupie/all the brown M&M's removed, he's an egotistical fading rock star. I'd be almost disappointed if he hadn't have behaved like an arse.

"Rock music gains much of its power from the communal experience. It needs a crowd." As does all music. Whether that crowd consists of 50 or 50,000 people is immaterial.

"If Guns N' Roses performed in front of two men in a pub, they'd look ridiculous." Personally, I think it would be great. Kate Rusby or the McGarrigle sisters in front of 100,000 at Wembley Stadium wouldn't, though. Much too quiet, don't you think?

The most important question is why Anushka Asthana spent £90 to see said band when she obviously wasn't very excited about it. Silly me, she probably didn't pay.

Anyway, I've spent too long on this, I could be watching Tunisia v Saudi Arabia. I would appreciate if you could reply, if only to tell me I'm wrong.

*****Disclaimer*****
I am not a fan of Guns 'N Roses

[chris]

In the cold light of day, I suspect I misdirected my fire. What I had in mind was not all rock music, but rather popular-cum-Stadium rock, and of course a lot of pop music, where the fanbase is larger than the talent.
David - I agree that feeling is more important than pure technique, but this point is valid for all genres. It hardly elevates Axl Rose over Jolie Holland.
That said, taste for guitar-based bands is pretty well limited to the Velvet Undergrounds, Talking Heads and Joy Division.

[chris]

In the cold light of day, I suspect I misdirected my fire. What I had in mind was not all rock music, but rather popular-cum-Stadium rock, and of course a lot of pop music, where the fanbase is larger than the talent.
David - I agree that feeling is more important than pure technique, but this point is valid for all genres. It hardly elevates Axl Rose over Jolie Holland.
That said, my taste for guitar-based bands is pretty well limited to the Velvet Undergrounds, Talking Heads and Joy Division.

[jack]

to have guns 'n roses perform for a friend and me would be a once in a lifetime experience, as it would it be if you saw a beloved folk band.

[headbanger]

Yes, it is all about power and prestige. Imagine, a rock musician? Many wishes to be a highly acclaimed rockers but there so many also failed. But one for sure, Guns N' Roses is one of the real.

[Karl Trevalusjne]

Dude, i think you've got a point, but you are generalising.

Indeed, those capitalistic suckers like Guns and Roses and U2 are making brainless, gutless music. They're just in for the money, and the music is just a 'tool' to get to that money.

But take for example Rage Against the Machine. They don't make music purely for the money. They do it for the music itself and to let the world know what they think of certain issues (like war). Why else whould they make those amazingly long texts on their music, which primairily are about that capitalist society is hypocrit and not nice towards other people (neither is Communism, but, hey, RATM doesn't say anything about that). If they would go for the money, they would've made some shitty lyrics about love, wouldn't they?

And don't Pop-artists "cause unjustified inequalities, retard social mobility, favour charisma over ability, uniformity over diversity, and help sustain capitalism." Take anyone in the charts: they make shitty, empty music just for the money. And the people like that because it's simple and easy to understand, and they are just stupid and shallow.

Those 'ganstah-rappers' even support inequality and the opression of women ("smack my bitch up") and weaker people.

By the way, your first argument is totally reversed. You say: "Why are they stupid? Because they cause unjustifed inequalities, etc." That's not right. That's like saying: "He can fly, so he is a duck."

And neither Rockers nor Pop-artists nor Gansters are ducks.

By the way, i advice you do sit down and have a serius conversation (which we call "Have a beer") with a serius Rock-fan. A Metalhead would even be better. They really are nice people.

And stop thinking that Jolie Holland is Divine. It may be nice music, but there is quite a number of artist that make about the same music: Katie Melua, for example.

Rock on, dude.

[賀寶芙]

Axl Rose is a 45 year old rebel ,guns 'n roses perform for a friend and me would be a once in a lifetime experience, as it would it be if you saw a beloved folk band.