Originally Posted by Schranz bass

They turned the joy of music into a paradigm of social identification.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that many people have lost touch with that notion and have consequently infected aesthetic understanding with 'in-group, out-group' appeal.

Originally Posted by Schranz bass

Yes, Chameleon, 'monkey see, monkey try to do.' You are right.


As far as I can tell, Elvis, although most likely speciously, implemented a new identity for society. Elvis was a performer; his image is what captivated people, not talent or musicianship. 'His' music encouraged people to like him because he was an icon who could define their personality. Indeed, there is nothing memorably artistic about him. He served as a model for people to emulate because they could not be genuine individuals.

I'm not sure when it started, but at some point business folk discovered that the best way to get rich and famous is to manipulate our innate love for music. They turned the joy of music into a paradigm of social identification. Elvis had to be liked because his managers and songwriters cultivated such a compelling image that defined so many people: a new 'cool'. His fans were too inhibited and neurotic to be real individuals.

When Elvis came along, 'his' music set a role for society to fill, and it disinhibited them; suddenly, it was appropriate to get excited and try to maximise their genetic attractiveness (I.E. if I listen to and present myself the same way as Elvis, I will have an 'acceptable' status in society)

The Elvis Manifesto.

Mike Jackson has done a lot more damage, though. Former beings like Mike are less evolved, meaning they have a more primitive way of interpreting the world, than we shining members of Music Banter.

For them life follows an egotistical impetus, so they (Michael J, Elvis, Rick James, Guns 'n' Roses, many more) don't have the capacity to grasp art, much less express it. Why do so many people praise performers who are only crafty enough to express themselves? Since when does the 'one-size-fits-all-popularity,' and stardom constitute a genius?

I see it as nothing more than genetic advertising. Stardom enables one to surpass certain tenets of natural selection, so if we have the same image and feel the same emotions, we must be able to spread our genes as liberally.

Music is quite capable of reaching deep, fervid feelings within us. Some people call it beautiful. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that many people have lost touch with that notion and have consequently infected aesthetic understanding with 'in-group, out-group' appeal.

Michael Jackson, Elvis, Bon Jovi, Nirvana, et cetera, are inspired by their own reflection, so they necessarily scathe true genius and aesthetic wonder.

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Do you actually believe any of this pile of pretentious drivel?

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

Do you actually believe any of this pile of pretentious drivel?

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

All I can see is him criticising Elvis for using the same standard practices that most artists in the 1950s were using at the time and then going on to name a bunch of other artists at the end with no discernible connection other than personal dislike.

Originally Posted by starrynight

Elvis was far bigger than anyone else then though wasn't he?