Wartime economy + Republicans = rock?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I'm guessing the whole economy vs. quality of rock thread has been done to death, but I thought that the 14 year rule was an interesting enough spin on the subject matter to warrant a revisiting.

"I have a theory that quality rock music rotates through culture on a 14-year cycle. I base this on two musically significant time markers: 1977 and 1991. If you use the historical bookends provided by the chaos unleashed with the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks in 1977 and the industry upheaval caused by Nirvana's Nevermind in 1991, you can calculate that we are currently experiencing a musical climate reflective of 1988. In 1988, we had a Republican White House armed and ready to annihilate the Middle East (check), and the airwaves were swollen with the saccharine sounds of Debbie Gibson (Britney Spears) and New Kids on the Block (*NSYNC). Outlets for rebellious middle-American youth were limited to hair-metal honchos like Whitesnake (Creed) and Mötley Crüe (Limp Bizkit). People were actually buying singles recorded by movie stars like Patrick Swayze (Nicole Kidman), and the record industry was predicting its own demise via home taping (file swapping).These bands may never see a heyday comparable to, say, Nirvana's, or even Radiohead's. And the year 2005 may seem like a long time to wait for a resurgence of worthwhile rock in the mainstream, but bands like Clinic are evidence that there's something worthwhile bubbling beneath the surface."

-The Seattle Stranger (issue 3-20-02)

Discuss!

― Mark, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

also known as the Daisychain of Crappy Pop-Crit Cliches theory

― mark s, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

All of which iz NOTHING like 1974.

― Sterling Clover, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

All of which iz NOTHING like 1974. Plus nirvana sucks ass compared to the pistols.

― Sterling Clover, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i love how this particular version of the cyclic theory is based on JUST TWO DATES!!

― mark s, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

bands like Clinic are evidence that there's something worthwhile bubbling beneath the surface. Really? I thought bands like Clinic were evidence that every so often a number of Americans feel this primal need to latch onto an English band, and that when they've gone too long without noticing a good one, then they'll settle for, y'know, something like Clinic just to scratch that itch.

― John Darnielle, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what if two great albums come out on the same day! cyclic period as defined here = 0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

will/has this ever happened?

― paul barclay, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

okay ... well i don't really have a clue for 1974, so someone run the year down for me. let's actually see if any of it fits in (not that i really, really think it does.

― fields of salmon, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

It must not happen else the universe will hyperaccelerate into cyclic overload and exhaust all available energy resulting in instant heat-death, mass disaster starvation and destruction.

― Sterling Clover, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Mine was:
1952::?
1964::The Beatles
1976::Punk (the Sex Pistols)
1988::Madchester
1990::Nirvana (at a push) but arguably Uncle Tupelo/Slint
2002::?

See the last digit is rotating through the even numbers as we switch through opposing decades. Cross-reference these years with recession years? Whadda-we-find?

― powertonevolume, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Me. And I am glorious.

Clinic, yeah right. I have absolutely no predictions on what will be next, but I have pretty good guesses as to what won't be.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Paul B! My two favourite albums of last year came out on the same day! It was GRATE! I didn't buy them on the same day though but if I had done I would have achieved enlightenment. Maybe.

― Tom, Friday, 5 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

for some reason this reminds me of the american tapes compilation entitled "No Reagan + No Bush = No Real Hardcore."

― your null fame, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

but music follows the lunar calendar, no? the best albums are released only on days when there is a full moon!

― geeta, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

yeah the BEST BEST albums come out at night

― , Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I hate when a good band gets overhyped.

― bnw, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I actually know someone who actually rationalized his (wasted, stupid, holier-than-thou, you fill in an adjective) vote for Nader on the "Republicans in Office = Quality Music" concept. It's the second year of the Monkey Times, with no Sex Pistols or Nirvana in sight ...

Besides, in 1977 Jimmy Carter was President and two years earlier we pulled out of Vietnam. So much for this silly theory.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I actually know someone who actually rationalized his (wasted, stupid, holier-than-thou, you fill in an adjective) vote for Nader I'd fill in that adjective with "would-have-otherwise-been-wasted- on-Gore-who-is-ideologically-indistinguishable-from-Bush-no- matter-how-the-brainwashed-raised-by-Demos-try-to-convince- themselves-otherwise," myself. Hey, you asked.

― John Darnielle, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Heh heh heh. Can't wait for the Tad rant on this one! Oh, and I voted Nader.

― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I voted Nader, too -- only 'cause I live in Gore-gimme state New York. I personally find mildly annoying (and worse, post-election) but I voted only because I wouldn't mind a viable progressive third party.

― Michael Daddino, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

"Gore-who-is-ideologically-indistinguishable-from-Bush"

Unfortunately, since a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush, the corollary to this is the dodgy old "the system must get worse before it can get better" line...

Wonder what Prez Gore would be doing now? Probably would have bombed Afghanistan. Probably wouldn't have given the top 10 percent a massive tax break, or started getting ready to attack Iraq, or handed environmental policy over to the oil industry.

― Ben Williams, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You don't think Gore would have handed over environmental policy to the oil industry? Whyever not? Clinton-Gore's environmental record was worse than that of their predecessors, though C-G admittedly paid lip service to their constituency's concerns. Obmusic: umm...live fish are better than Phish.

― John Darnielle, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No, I don't, because Gore's campaign wasn't funded in large part by the oil industry and he (unlike Clinton, who was the man in charge, after all) does have stronger environmental views than just about any mainstream politician. I'm sure he wouldn't have pleased hardcore environmentalists, but he wouldn't have been as craven as Bush.

Anyway, just to qualify, I think that

a) Gore blew his campaign mostly without help from Nader (he shouldn't have needed those Nader votes)

b) I'm not really anti-Nader (though some of the things he said during the campaign--like that worse-before-it-gets-better line, which he did actually say--were just head-in-the-sand stuff)

c) There were positive reasons to vote for Nader, like trying to establish a third party (however pie in the sky that is) and sending a message to the Democrats

Just don't give me that Bush is the same as Gore line. It's bullshit.

PS I don't have the right to vote. I will now leave--sorry for fanning the flames of political disagreement ;)

― Ben Williams, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Just don't give me that Bush is the same as Gore line. It's bullshit.

i don't think anyone's saying they're literally identical; just pointing out that the republicans have remained the staunch, evil right while the democrats have drifted closer and closer to the center. and when it comes to taking bribes from corporations and special interests, they're all hip-deep. the only reasons the democrats smell a little better is that they generally get smaller contributions, mostly due to the fact that they are marginally less willing to be blatant whores for industry. IMHO.

― your null fame, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

No. They ARE literally identical. Proof: NO ONE HAS SEEN GORE SINCE BUSH TOOK OFFICE!!

― mark s, Saturday, 6 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

WRONG. I have seen him. He got fat and grew a half-decent beard. Ya think he's trying to be a bear?

"Look at me, Tipper! I'm a bear! Grrrr!"

― Michael Daddino, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

PROOF: no one has seen michael jackson since bush took office!

― geeta, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

http://www.theoriginalsoundtrack.com/art/war1.gif

― geeta, Sunday, 7 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I voted Nader as well, so go ahead and hate me. I welcome it, as a matter of fact.

― Justyn Dillingham, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what is a "half decent beard"?

― mark s, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

(new actionable answers: nicole kidman wrapped only in a beach towel ahahaha!!)

― mark s, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

i find it really, REALLY odd that this particular issue of the stranger had not one, not two, but THREE articles tangentially related to a "return to rock"/"(x) year theory"/"pop sucks" all written by chiXoRs!

mark, i too loved how this one was based on two years.

i was very depressed for the whole day after reading this issue, btw.

― jess, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

What annoys me about the pendulum theory of rock (aside from it not working) is that it never explains why the pendulum swings, it just points out that it does so every 2/5/7/10/14 years. Since the articles tend to be written from the point of view that rock is the undeniably superior form it begs the questions: if rock is so obviously bettah, why do the swings to pop happen AT ALL? And what happens to change "the kids" from glassy-eyed corporate vassal- vessels to the dynamic consumer-motors of a musical sea change?

― Tom, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

what is a "half decent beard"?

Gawd, I have to remember to use hyphens. Hyphens!

It's a beard that looks half-decent, meaning fitting, OK, somewhat flattering.

― Michael Daddino, Tuesday, 9 April 2002 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

ten months pass...

Some States Propose End to Arts Spending

Rock!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 20 February 2003 16:54 (twenty-two years ago)

...also known as the Daisychain of Crappy Pop-Crit Cliches theory
Well, mark s...my theory aimed at a 7 year timeframe, but kept disinitegrating when when US and UK timelines were compared. But I *still* say it is a valid idea. (That upheavals happen roughly every 7 (or so) years.)

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 20 February 2003 18:29 (twenty-two years ago)

...or its just sunspots. Take yer pick.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 20 February 2003 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

It must not happen else the universe will hyperaccelerate into cyclic overload and exhaust all available energy resulting in instant heat-death, mass disaster starvation and destruction.
Heh heh heh heh heh. Cooooool!

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 20 February 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.