[syndicate] le r*ck est m*rt

[dolmensniper at free.fr]

Selon Alan Sondheim <sondheim at panix.com>:

>
>
> On Mon, 31 Oct 2005, dolmensniper at free.fr wrote:
>
> > rock is dead as the vector of its original message (america, freedom, etc)
> > now it can surely be filled up with a new content (already done, in fact)
> >
> rock is dead for you.

no. rock is not dead for me. i am just currently listening to what could be
called rock. i thought i made my point clear with my reference to debord. what
i mean is that when subversion is called subversion, it is not subversion
anymore. just like when we wrote together and ppl said to me "you are such a
bad writer". at this time we were rockers.

>
> > rock in its original meaning was a false rebellion. it has tried to
> > integrate itself in the mainstream medias. it has succeeded. but it has
> > lost its soul. when subversion gets a name, it is not subversion
> > anymore.
> >
> which rock. who are you talking about. this kind of generalization strikes
> me as meaningless.

you are right. which rock. but in france what we call rock is r'n'r from the
50's, usually.
> what's a true rebellion.

suicide

> what audience are you taking about.

me

> what groups.
> who has 'tried to integrate' in this fashion.

elvis presley is not a leisure product????

> who has lost their soul.

all the ones who have changed music for fame.

> why 'when sub. it is not sub.'
> too facile.

too true also.