agreeable tunes but as much relation to the real music scene as logan paul has to professional boxing.
just because you weren't interested or involved, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
people literally used to have fights on the beaches based on whether you were a 'mod' or a 'rocker'. there were huge fractious disputes in the ska community between the urbane skinheads and the racist far-right wing skinheads. i mean, how often did punk rockers argue over who was 'really punk' or who was a 'poser', or whether even 'punk rock was dead?' and the latest lame band killed it? what was the entire fracas about between metal fans and grunge fans, if not over what was 'real' rock music? ("they can't even play guitar!") F F S did you even live through that decade?
'authenticity' is a term imported from french existentialist philosophy, which undoubtedly had its hey-day in the cultural furnaces of the 1960s–1980s, being very in vogue and on every NME readers' lips with their steady diet of translated camus/sartre and jean-luc godard movies. if anything, the term has no meaning or importance nowadays, where it seems po-faced and passé to all those gen-z tiktokkers who move between many genres and styles without thinking twice.
as usual, you are illiterate and talk out of your ass, as if you automatically know it all.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-22 22:01:28)
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-11-22 22:10:40)
You didn't even watch that video did you?
of course the 14-yos were imitating their elder siblings or the older kids at school, the 'cool kids' and late-adolescents of the neighbourhood.
maybe even they didn't read french philosophy, fat chance in fact, but the concept was imported to popular culture via that philosophy. it had a clear trajectory and shelf life. the concept of authenticity, and of self-fashioning yourself, including by conspicuously consuming certain things and dressing in a certain way, didn't just spring out of a rock. the concept was a product of a specific sociocultural moment. cultures pick up and put down these concepts in interesting ways. again, i'm sure you understand how culture disseminates itself.
the 1980s were an incredibly tribalist, clique-ey-, identity driven era. people formed gangs based precisely around music taste. if you don't think 'authenticity' is central to gang/group formation, then go read a fucking book. honestly. you are clueless beyond all belief. just because you sailed blithely through the decade being fed whatever noel edmunds pumped out on car radio, didn't mean these huge cultural trends simply didn't happen.
even within the ska listenership, there was literally a huge ruction between the original, first-generation 'rudeboy' fans who came to ska through multicultural jamaican roots, and who tended to be inner-city cosmopolitan, and the racist skinheads who came via oi, hardcore punk, etc., and tended to be white working-class.
this article mentions authenticity about a half-dozen times.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-22 22:19:22)
of course i did. let me guess, you made it to the point where a person clearly dressed as a textbook example of a punk says 'i'm not anything, i'm just individual!' and took that as a surface reading. what do you think all the protestation about individuality, uniqueness, etc, is, simultaneous to the clear wish to belong to a group, if not ... authenticity?!? and we're still discussing people who base their entire identity around the music they listen to. all of those identity groups mentioned in the video are literally fucking based on music genres.
Dilbert_X wrote:You didn't even watch that video did you?
'people didn't care back then, we just listened to anything'.
amazing reading of the 1980s there.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-22 22:17:44)
Kids like to join cliques, the stupid ones latch on and make it their whole identity, most of them grow out of it and forget it.
I'm sure existentialism is top of her priorities.
kids didn't join cliques before the 1950s. i wonder why that is? there were no subcultures based around your music taste in the 1880s. i wonder why? what modern philosophy and movement originated in those intervening years? which trendy, fashionable french philosophy put individual self-fashioning and identity-formation centre stage, grounding everything in a concept called 'authenticity'?
i wonder how the history of the use of the word/term even correlates with this thesis.
wowsers! look at that! the term subculture originates almost coetaneously with the arrival of 'existentialism' in english, when it was first translated from french in the 1950s/60s and began to gain traction in pop culture!
let's just recall, you just said that 'nobody cared about authenticity in the 1980s, we just listened to stuff'.
the 1980s were intensely fucking tribalistic and youth culture was literally based around music-taste-based identities.
i should start charging you for all this tutoring.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-22 22:37:46)
Teenagers took on an identity related to music, amazing.
And hung around in parks with like-minded people until they were old enough to go to pubs and forget about it.
and, regardless, it was still very much the first or second decade where people began to actively define their personalities based on MUSIC taste.
for you to say that ska music in the 1980s wasn't a deeply charged, deeply personally invested genre is fucking hilarious. people formed gangs and FOUGHT over this musical heritage.
gen-z'ers today aren't smacking each other senseless in dingy clubs because they dare listen to a different sort of music.
There was a kid at school who was deeply invested in NME, he picked a persona and after summer holidays came back as some Howard Jones/Nik Kershaw sort of thing. Everyone thought he was a dick.
are you familiar with the concept of a cultural meme? aren't you a dawkins fanboy? don't you understand how a philosophy can seed a relatively complicated and arcane idea that then has its own after-life in a culture? 'authenticity' in the sense we think of it now, as being tighly interwoven with subcultures and faddish, cliqueish behaviour, was literally an invention of the 1950s/1960s. similar era as the invention of 'the teenager' as a consumer category and target demographic. all these things are closely imbricated with the counter-culture, a newly individualist outlook, which was ... literally the heritage of existentialism.
do keep up. you are really not very bright.
Most people do things because their friends are doing it - its really no more complex than that.
Nobody 'invented teenagers'. Kids spent longer in school and had time and energy on their hands.
They weren't invented by some Rand-esque marketing nut in a backroom over a lot of coffees and cigars.
People who went to Woodstock - and that was like literally everyone in America - went because
a) The zeitgeist was so strong it took on physical form like magnetism and literally pulled them in
b) They wanted to listen to music and get stoned with their friends
https://museumofyouthculture.com/teen-intro-three/First coined by American market researchers during the 1940s, the term 'teenager' was imported into Britain during the early 1950s. Presented by the media and cultural commentators as the vanguard of contemporary social trends, 'teenagers' were configured as the sharp-end of a new consumer culture. As writer Peter Laurie contended in his survey of The Teenage Revolution, published in 1965, 'The distinctive fact about teenagers' behaviour is economic: they spend a lot of money on clothes, records, concerts, makeup, magazines: all things that give immediate pleasure and little lasting use'. In these terms, the phrase 'teenager' was not a simple description of a generational category. Instead, it also carried a wealth of connotations that configured young people as the precursors to a world of leisure-oriented consumption; an exciting foretaste of affluent good times soon to be within everyone's grasp.
it's fucking ASTOUNDING how far out of your depth you are in these conversations. you don't know anything about history or culture at all. and yet you make me seem like i'm the ridiculous one. read richard hoggart's 'the uses of literacy', which talks about this at great length (and is an incredible book).
'youth culture' was literally a novel phenomenon to the 1950s. saying 'people do things because their friends do it' is massively insufficient for the huge collective trends – if not manias – of things like teddy boys, mods and rockers, punk, goth, etc. these things were literally seeded, for e.g., on the british isles by the american record industry. huge amounts of money, advertisements, supply-chain distributions, etc, went into it. how do you think an entire generation of teenagers in the 1950s and 1960s who grew up in northern-industrial towns ended up slicking back their hair and listening to rockabilly? do you think they downloaded it from the interwebs? lmao ffs. it was an industry that was shaping these people.
as i'm sure you're aware, with all those stadium concerts you go to, the main audience for pop music is still 12–16 year old girls. they are the main consumers of those huge industries. if you don't think that the market, and advertisers, haven't adapted or helped to shape this category, then you are stupid beyond all belief and clearly don't understand much about consumerism/materialism and its effects on subjects and identity-formation.
people went to woodstock for both reasons. that's how culture and 'cultural trends' work. it's not a bunch of perfectly rational people making simple transactions 'because we like it'. they went because it was also a hugely hyped thing and there was a great collective energy. it's part of the draw, the energy, the buzz, and always has been. you don't have to go to a festival to get stoned and listen to music with your friends ...
why are you so fucking dense? it's like trying to explain human beings to an autistic teenager.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-23 01:17:39)
Its always funny how historians have nothing better to do than extrapolate one street in London to the whole of the UK.
no one is saying everyone in the UK was a part of the swinging sixties or the punks. but they were widespread social phenomena. i just showed you a video where entire streets of working-class youths in ireland, of all places, were dressed like skinheads, rudeboys and punks. but, oh, it was just 'one little street in london', to be sure ...
richard hoggart did a landmark study of youth culture in the UK, taking the industrial terraces of LEEDS as his subject, and showed how a new wave of american youth culture had landed on british shores and changed the social fabric of life there forever; no longer traditional identities rooted in place, family, and other working-class institutions, but an internationalized/globalized 'youth culture' based on consumer categories. it's LITERALLY one of the founding texts of cultural studies and one of THE MOST INFLUENTIAL books to be published on this subject.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/ … rd-hoggart
listed at no. 25 on the top 100 nonfiction books of all time. though you haven't heard of it, of course, and are derisive and dismissive as usual.
or read a short little book by dennis potter, 120 pp, 'the changing forest', which gives the same account in microcosmic form based on the forest of dean in the UK. you could read it in 2 hours if you liked. but you won't, because you're ignorant and like to think Dilbert Always Knows Best.
and on and on you prate about 'silly historians extrapolating from nothing'. you DON'T fucking read anything, you idiot. you don't even know how ignorant you are. many fine and well-researched books have been written on this topic. couldn't one say that YOU are at fault here, assuming you have an encyclopaedic knowledge and deep analytical grasp of the subject because, erm, 'i was there in the 1980s'. wow, well done.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-23 01:33:07)
Seemed like one or two really, three-four max.
uziq wrote:entire streets of working-class youths
My parents lived in London in the 60s and only learned about this stuff 20 years later.widespread social phenomena
I'm sure in 20 years we'll learn that everyone of your generation was either a goth or a metalhead and there were no cisgender people at all.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2021-11-23 01:41:02)
just to clarify, saying 'no one cared about authenticity in the 1980s, we just listened to what we liked' is one of the funniest things you have ever written. the entire pop-cultural stereotype of the 1980s is of everyone dressed ridiculously according to their musical tribe. i've got pictures of my own parents and younger aunts dressed according to music taste from the 1970s onwards.
try and make out it was 3 streets and a niche concern if you want. it's more likely you were just a white-bread normie. if manchester, liverpool, leeds, sheffield, birmingham, etc, could all give birth to distinctive youth cultures and subcultures, somehow i doubt it was limited to one privileged enclave in london. we are not talking about the swinging 60s exclusively, here.
didn't you grow up in fucking qatar or an oil-spewing emirate for fuck's sake? i'm sure you have an intricate knowledge of early 80s–90s youth culture.
https://www.pinterest.se/nightprinzess/ … n-the-80s/
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-23 02:09:55)
Whats strange is your desperation to make niche subcultures mainstream.
what is truly strange is your desperation to make evidently nation-wide, if not international, currents of youth culture seem like 'a few streets, maybe, in london' and 'a few schoolchildren copying each other, nothing more'. lol fucking what? these were all-consuming lifestyles for whole generations of youth. i just pointed out to you a book about leeds, a book about the forest of dean, of all places ... we are discussing bands from essex and coventry ... but you argue against the idea it was nationwide youth culture? LOL ok, idiot.
as usual it's you arguing against the 'mainstream' of historical discourse. the idea of there being a post-1950s rise in 'the teenager' and 'youth culture' is an entirely orthodox political reading. there have been about 15 major books written about it. you don't read, so you don't know that, of course. so you argue from your piteous little corner, Dilbert Knows Best – "i wuzz there!" – and think this stands in place of actual argument. get a life.
Last edited by uziq (2021-11-23 18:12:41)
Must be any day now that historians will say everyone 15-25 in the 90s spent every weekend high on ecstacy at raves.