Rockin' the 'f' out

[Future Boy]

I guess my point is that it is possible to RTFO in one's garage with one's bandmates. The audience, I think, is not a necessary ingredient, simply one that can make it easier to get to that place. My band in high school played most of our shows to nearly empty bars whose few patrons were not terribly interested in us. Well, OK, there was Andy that one time, but that's another story. Despite that fact, I think we managed to RTFO every time because that was how we rolled. Sloppy, lo-fi, loud, and Rocking.

Boltoph: I'm not talking about a genre when I say "the Ideal of Rocking", I'm talking about a philosophical concept. The distinction between abstract concept and actual music is what you appear to be failing to grasp.

[jack]

once upon a time, in fact the very first time i met blue in person i think, he played a show with me at this hillbilly dive bar roadhouse up in the santa cruz mountains called "applejacks". he showed up with a banjo and ukelele and a little pickup he could stick on the back of his uke to amplify it. we played about five songs together with my makeshift band, as the opening act, to a crowd of maybe 20. and let me tell you......

blue rocked the fuck out on the uke. which made us rock the fuck out as a band. which in turn, made the 20 odd folks in the bar rock the fuck out.

the clincher was when the drunk guy fell down dancing and moshing right in front of us just as the last song ended. that was a good sign that to at least a couple folks, we were RTFO.

and having seen blue's band live, i can understand how his interpretation of RTFO might be different from most.

[fluffy]

sonofsupercar is not actually a band. It is an elite cadre of the best and brightest who became test subjects in an experimental military treatment, intended to bring world domination. However, something went wrong, and instead of becoming brutal killers, they became an unstoppable force of ROCK.

[Dan-O from Five-O]

I know what you're talking about, well now I do anyway. But man, aren't those tables and chairs gigs the worst? I guess early on in my playing days, it didn't bother me much, I was just happy to be playing. But as I've gotten older and a little bit spoiled by the better gigs I do today, it's just hard for me to accept that lack of feedback and still bring the rock. Like I said, it still happens a lot at practice, but in the end the best playing I do is live. I can't explain why any better than I've tried. I just love that instant feedback you get from a live audience.

[boltoph]

Boltoph: I'm not talking about a genre when I say "the Ideal of Rocking", I'm talking about a philosophical concept. The distinction between abstract concept and actual music is what you appear to be failing to grasp.

This "abstract" concept seems to include the eyes as well as the ears. I live in a world of "actual music" so I only have one thing to say: There's no doubt in my mind that my IQ appears to be quite a bit lower than the average around here. ROK.

[reve]

by being there. Whether they bought a ticket or payed a cover charge, or whatever they did to get to the show, by being there they have as much a responsibility to bring something to the table as the band. If they wanted to sit on their hands or be a couch potato, they should have stayed at fucking home.

To drag this already somewhat theoretical thread further into the mire, I think statement operates under the fallacious assumption that the audience is there to RTFO as well.

They may have paid to be at the venue -- or they may not have. However, in their minds they have paid not for the opportunity to be graced by your musical prowness, but rather to have an opportunity to taunt, verbally harrass, and degrade you, the performer.

While I am far too polite to ridicule shitty bands, evil thoughts have certainly passed through my head. I've wanted to throw objects that have a propensity to splatter, I've wanted to call people poseurs.

When you climb up on stage, you are implicity asking people to form an opinion of you. If it is the audience has duty to RTFO to celebrate your RTFOness, they wouldlikewise have a duty to destroy you (to the best of their ability) if your performance instigated a negative emotional state (because for instance, you're a poseur and you suck).

Unfortunately, while many of us agree on the theoretical underpinnings of what it means to RTFO, we will differ wildly in our personal opinions in regards to what does -- and what does not -- RTFO. Fringe generes are more susceptible; I bet a lot of people split between RTFO and "sucky poseur" with something like japanese noisecore.

Earlier folks were discussing subversive music and it's relationship to RTFOing. If you climb on stage and RTFO, you can't be subversive. I mean, that's what "the man" is paying you to do, as it were -- RTFO. When you RTFO people stay longer, buy more drinks, and form a favorable impression of the venue. Rocking the brown note, sure, that's subversive. RTFOing and convincing people to abstain forever from alcohol -- that too, would be subversive. But RTFOing by itself? Engh.

Anyway, the reason I'm here is 'cause Puce said that I should have told everyone how much Datarock RTFO's.

So: You know who RTFOs? Datarock.
http://www.datarock.no/booking/Computer_camp_love.mpg

[Lunkhead]

I guess to me this all kind of boils down to whether or not there is one definable absolute Rocking, as I think Future Boy is saying there is (correct me if I've misinterprted). Some people in the original review thread said a couple songs in the fight definitely did not rock. Boltoph I think it was (again, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm in a hurry here so I'm not being very deliberate about this) said basically that different people have different ideas about what "Rocking" means. So you've got two perspectives, one that's seems to say there is an absolute, definable ROCK, one that seems to say that ROCK is relative, we all define ROCK for ourselves. I don't know if I'm really comfortable with either. If you go with the aboslute, then some people who think they're Rocking are actually wrong. If you go with the relative then some people are rocking to stuff you don't think ROCKS, but that's OK. Normally that's fine, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with saying that it's always OK. I'm wondering what the middle ground is, if there is one?

[Dan-O from Five-O]

However, in their minds they have paid not for the opportunity to be graced by your musical prowness, but rather to have an opportunity to taunt, verbally harrass, and degrade you, the performer.

First of all it's prowEss not prowNess. And secondly, again, then stay the fuck at home. Or better yet, seek some counseling.

I've wanted to throw objects that have a propensity to splatter, I've wanted to call people poseurs.

Been to jail much? And calling me a poseur (sic) will get your ass kicked really fucking quick, especially if you say it with a French accent.

When you climb up on stage, you are implicity asking people to form an opinion of you.

Very true. And the same holds true for this type of forum as well.

If it is the audience (that) has (a) duty to RTFO to celebrate your RTFOness, they would(space)likewise have a duty to destroy you (to the best of their ability) if your performance instigated a negative emotional state (because for instance, you're a poseur and you suck).

Agreed, but if you see me reaching for the back of my amp at that moment, you'll want to run unless you want to end up on CNN with me.

[reve]

... in their minds they have paid not for the opportunity to be graced by your musical prowness, but rather to (laugh at you).

... again, then stay the fuck at home. Or better yet, seek some counseling.

So... you've never gone to or rented a b-movie for kicks? As I type this, millions of people are watching "Worst ever American Idol Auditions" or something to that effect.

My point is that people seek out entertainment in a variety of guises, and the entertainer doesn't have control over how people choose to interpret their work. If the audience wants to laugh at you, then more power to them. Is it rude? Yes. Would I reccomend taking such a course of action? No. I do, however, think that it's terribly arrogant for peformers to attempt to dictate how they'll be received.

Been to jail much? And calling me a poseur (sic) will get your ass kicked really fucking quick, especially if you say it with a French accent.

No, because a) I'm far too polite to be mean to people, and b) I think it's far more useful to put yourself in a frame of mind where you can see the redeeming elements of any piece of art. My reviews here always accentuate the positive, even if I didn't particularly like the song. Because even if I don't get into it, I can see how other people might -- so that's what I choose to comment on.

And yes, you could probably kick my ass. But why would you bother to do so if I called you a poseur? You agree with me that by climbing on stage you ask the audience to form an opinion of you, but if a member of the audience expresses that opinion you suddenly have the right to physically assult them? That's neither logical nor legal.

... if you see me reaching for the back of my amp at that moment, you'll want to run unless you want to end up on CNN with me.

If I'm reading this correctly... you keep a weapon in your amp?

But anyway, let's try to formulate a concice working definition of RTFO. To fit with everyone's conceptions, we need to engage the artists, the audience, exclude the people who arn't into it, and describe their state of zenlike rapture. Please modify the following:

RTFO (v) : the end result of a process whereby a musicial entity engages all active participants into a communal state of ecstasy.

[the Jazz]

. . . electronic jazz . . .

Don't make me hurt you.

System of a Down - yes! They rock WAY the fuck out. Zappa rocks the fuck out.

Cashpoint laughs... with me or at me? I can't figure it out. Please help.

[sparks]

Stuff can be glossy and still rock the fuck out. It's about the sound, not the perfection. Say, "Pablo Picasso" by Bowie, rocks the fuck out, to me. But it's totally polished to perfection and then some. I don't think it hurts it any.

And, in response to an above argument, I am pretty sure the audience isn't the final decider in terms of your ability to rock. I saw the New York Dolls get booed by 50,000 people a weekend ago. Get this: people were calling David Johansen a "posseur" (or would have been if there were a word in redneck that translated precisely) for looking like Jagger. I was saddened. The Stones were better writers musicians by a million miles, but the Dolls <i>made</i> that look.

[reve]

Say, "Pablo Picasso" by Bowie, rocks the fuck out, to me.

Man, I bet we could have a whole thread on who's version of that song RTFO's the most. JR's, Bowie's, Cale's, or the one by that punk band in Repo Man.

[Future Boy]

If you go with the aboslute, then some people who think they're Rocking are actually wrong.

Exactly. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. If you want to be all inclusive and happy, start a fucking drum circle.

(Note: While I am being extreme in my defense of Rocking, I do not believe it is the ultimate in musical expression and that everyone who does not spend all of their time Rocking is a terrible musician who shouldn't be making music. As you all know, Future Boy doesn't really RTFO much at all.)

[Leaf]

God I hate drum circles.

[thehipcola]

God I hate drum circles.

what a shame, don't they happen regularly out there on Quadra? They used to...

[erik]

I guess to me this all kind of boils down to whether or not there is one definable absolute Rocking, as I think Future Boy is saying there is (correct me if I've misinterprted). Some people in the original review thread said a couple songs in the fight definitely did not rock. Boltoph I think it was (again, correct me if I'm wrong, I'm in a hurry here so I'm not being very deliberate about this) said basically that different people have different ideas about what "Rocking" means. So you've got two perspectives, one that's seems to say there is an absolute, definable ROCK, one that seems to say that ROCK is relative, we all define ROCK for ourselves. I don't know if I'm really comfortable with either. If you go with the aboslute, then some people who think they're Rocking are actually wrong. If you go with the relative then some people are rocking to stuff you don't think ROCKS, but that's OK. Normally that's fine, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with saying that it's always OK. I'm wondering what the middle ground is, if there is one?

WARNING: DANGEROUS SEMANTICS AHEAD

Dude 1: Man, this song really rocks!
Dude 2: Dude, this song doesn't rock.
Dude 1: C'mon, we can all have different ideas about what rocks.
Dude 2: I know, that's why I was disagreeing with you.

"We can all have different ideas about what rocks" doesn't negate the opinion "This song doesn't rock". The only way you can negate that is to say "Everything rocks". And that position sucks.

I think that the middle ground is that when discussing what makes for good music, be prepared to have a position, and explain it. I could care less if someone is rocking out to Winger, or thinks that Matchbox 20 really rocks the fuck out. C'est la vie. But when we're talking about music, such as we do here constantly, at least tell me why you think something rocks, instead of just saying "Yuh-huh, I'm entitled to my opinion so there, NEENER NEENER" or imploring the circular logic of "Music that rocks shall be defined as music that I find interesting".

In other news, drum circles do indeed suck.

[Lunkhead]

Future Boy: So who decides what the absolute Rock is? There doesn't seem to be a consensus. Going down that route seems to wind up with someone arbitrarily deciding, "Look, I/we decide what is the True Rock, because I/we really know and you/they don't."

Erik: I think I see what you're saying. It does seem lame when people refuse to defend their opinions with any kind of reasoning other than "Hey, that's just my opinion." That definitely does not further the conversation any.

In the review threads, though, I think a lot of the time many of us here don't have the experience/vocabulary to know how to further explain our opinions about a song, and particularly about the production of a song. That contributes a lot to the lack of useful info in the reviews, I think. There isn't really enough dialog for us to figure out what we mean a lot of the time, too, which sucks.

[Lunkhead]

This whole businss makes me think of the way we all (mis)communicate on the boards. It seems like there are three types of statements commonly made on the board which can cause confusion/commotion. Using the example of "rock":

1. "That doesn't rock!" meaning just that, in absolute terms.
2. "That doesn't rock!" meaning "In my opinion that doesn't rock!"
3. "In my opinion that doesn't rock!"

Sometimes it can be really hard to tell what somebody means when they just say "That doesn't rock!" because you can't always assume that they mean "In my opinion that doesn't rock!" It might help if people explicitly reminded their audience that what they're saying is just their opinion, if that's what it is, rather than some kind of absolute assessment like 2 + 2 != 5. Statements like that don't really seem to leave a lot of room for discussion, since you can really either just agree or disagree, in which case there isn't really much point responding to them, I think.

[erik]

This whole businss makes me think of the way we all (mis)communicate on the boards. It seems like there are three types of statements commonly made on the board which can cause confusion/commotion. Using the example of "rock":

1. "That doesn't rock!" meaning just that, in absolute terms.
2. "That doesn't rock!" meaning "In my opinion that doesn't rock!"
3. "In my opinion that doesn't rock!"

Sometimes it can be really hard to tell what somebody means when they just say "That doesn't rock!" because you can't always assume that they mean "In my opinion that doesn't rock!" It might help if people explicitly reminded their audience that what they're saying is just their opinion, if that's what it is, rather than some kind of absolute assessment like 2 + 2 != 5. Statements like that don't really seem to leave a lot of room for discussion, since you can really either just agree or disagree, in which case there isn't really much point responding to them, I think.

Sheesh, that's one of my big pet peeves, so I won't be doing that any time soon. I hate having to remind people that a statement which can neither be proved nor disproved is my opinion, especially in a review thread which is by design set up to ellicit opinions. The thing that bothers me about it is that people who say "Yeah, but that's YOUR opinion" only use that when someone has said something unflattering, as if saying what you think implies that you are saying people who think differently are backwards. Someone who says flattering things is never chided with "yeah but that's your opinion".

Well, what else could it even be, but an opinion? I suppose some people might actually mean that they think that a song doesn't rock, in absolute terms. But you know what? That's *still* their opinion. There's no way that they can make it a factual statement.

[Dan-O from Five-O]

Well said Eric, and I was thinking the same thing. I mean, just because a reviewer says thumbs down or thumbs up to a movie, shouldn't mean an individual shouldn't make up their own mind about going to see it. The same should hold true in reviews of the songs. I think a bad review was just my way of saying "Sorry, this just didn't reach me" without actually only saying that. I thought the opinion part of doing reviews was already implied.

I hate those short little useless "Not my thing" or "This Rocks" reviews. It should be backed up by "And this is why" but the "In my opinon" thing should always just be understood. What else could it be but someone's opinion?

[Lunkhead]

Do you mean then that nobody can definitely say "XYZ song does not rock" in absolute terms? And even if they try to, they are actually still just expressing their personal opinion that XYZ song doesn't rock? If that's what you mean, then is that contrary to what Future Boy was saying?

[jack]

I hate those short little useless "Not my thing" or "This Rocks" reviews. It should be backed up by "And this is why" but the "In my opinon" thing should always just be understood. What else could it be but someone's opinion?

next time i review your song, you know you're gonna get a "in my opinion, it's just not my thing. that said, i couldn't find anywhere in the FAQ where i need to back that up. i'd rather just be polite and say it's not my thing. i could have left you off the reviews completely but then you'd most likely feel slighted, call me out, and make me explain why i thought your song was a piece of shit."

or i might say "in my opinion this rocks. it rocks for so many reasons that i just can't begin to elaborate on them all. let's just say it rocks. it's just a feeling in my gut that it rocks. it makes me want to hold up my bic."

i suppose that's a bit more embellishment than might be necessary though.