bothering to write record reviews (these aren't really reviews, and are certainly far from the analyses i have over on my review page, which i'll note has a five year minimum age on it) for newish releases comes with an understanding of my own tendencies and biases as a listener. i tend to over-react when i'm underwhelmed by something i had high expectations for.
there wasn't really a possibility that defeater could have bettered their last album, the question was whether it would be a huge disappointment or a marginal one. how would they twist the narrative? would they get poppier, or over-compensate in the other direction, or even take an experimental swing? when walking into that situation from the start, biases are going to overpower on first listen. it needs time...
i'm not going to get into the story. i'm not the teenager that is going to spend hours and hours sorting out all the characters and how everything fits into a chronological space. i have a loose understanding. that's enough to get it. it's the kind of thing that puts itself in place over years, not weeks; i'm old enough that a part of me ties itself to a reality that existed before internet forums, when there was more independent analysis. but, the loose understanding is important in understanding the musical decisions. this chapter focuses on a person with unappealing character traits, and the swing towards a broier-core (don't hate it, interpret it) seems to be contextual. ok, but is it listenable?
it's going to depend on who you are, obviously. defeater are a punk band, but they're hardcore enough that they have a crossover into that thrash/metalcore bro audience. this entire discussion will mostly not even cross their mind. for the smaller number of fans of more pure punk music (which is not remotely this heavy) that consider this on the envelope of heaviness that they can tolerate, though, it's an issue that took me about twenty listens to get over completely and put the hooks in their dominant position. take that as you may...
....but it doesn't actually answer the question, does it? well, what's your interest in theatrical music? how far are you going to dig into this oxymoronic concept of a "punk opera", anyways? there are some guest vocalists i'd never listen to, and they stand out as something i'd never listen to, but it works in that theatrical setting.
so, a loose understanding of the story is really key to get beyond the heavier gloss, if you don't usually listen to music this heavy. and time is required to reclaim the hooks and melodies.
meaning it's less of a disappointment and more of a grower. ask me how much of a grower it is in five years....
http://bridge9.bandcamp.com/album/letters-home
Sunday, January 26, 2014
on the staggeringly clear parallels between citizen and bon jovi (or, the curious observation that citizen fans seem, inexplicably, to not like bon jovi much...)
Uncle Elvis
Wow. Boring! This crap put me to sleep! Where the fuck does a band like this get its influence from? Cough syrup commercials?
deathtokoalas
sounds like bon jovi, mostly.
i honestly don't care if people enjoy this. i just wish they'd stop marketing it wrong. it's hair metal, and the demographic is teenage girls that think the singer is cute.
arod13arod
in what fucking deluded world do you live in that you think this sounds even remotely like bon jovi?
deathtokoalas
i don't know how you can miss it, really. but i think thursday sounded like bon jovi, too. that whole jersey punk thing was 90% bon jovi, 10% ian mackeye.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i'm sorry that you don't realize that corporate emo and hair metal are indistinguishable up to the age of the listener.
Nickelpitts
Stop hating on a talented band. If you don't like it, listen to your own crap. Just don't make fun of people's musical interest.
deathtokoalas
i didn't, honestly. i stated specifically that i have no ill will at all whatsoever in any form or content towards people who enjoy music of this particular variety. my interjection into the conversation was even with the specific intent of converting a crude outburst of disgust into a more tolerant discourse. you oaf. that being said, my lack of ill will towards those that do enjoy this does not in any way preclude me from making objective, comparable statements about the nature of said sound - namely that emo of the pop-punk variety is virtually indistinguishable from bon jovi in terms of melody and songwriting structure. they may have different hair. i'm talking about sound, though.
so, might i reflect to those that feel the need to jump to conclusions that inquiry is not equivalent to hostility and people that don't enjoy the same music as you don't therefore (implication i think, here, is key) hate you.
DatzWhatsUp
hahahahaha bon jovi hahahahaha
Nickelpitts
You know showing off your vocabulary to defend your unneeded criticism doesn't make you appear smarter. If anything calling me a "oaf" does nothing but convince me further that you simply consider yourself as someone who has a issue with tearing a talented band down in order to make yourself seem like a musical prodigy. At least they are following their dream >.> not making fun of other musicians.
deathtokoalas
ok, but now you're basically conceding the point that i wasn't intending to tear anybody down and tearing down a strawman of me instead. and, to that end, i wish you great fun. i'd even help brainstorm strawman ideas to tear down if i didn't think it was a waste of time.
TheStory SoFar
Actually I've been listening to them for awhile now and I never once looked at the band members so no, not everyone likes bands for their looks. Its how they can relate to lyrics and how they like the sound. Get your head out of your ass and go somewhere else.
deathtokoalas
nonono, i'm the one that tells people they have their heads in their asses.
my statements admittedly excluded the caveat that some people have incomprehensibly bad taste. apologies. but, on the balance of probabilities...
i actually don't know what these kids look like either, i just assumed they have long hair and wear their shirts open. that's what they sound like, anyways...
TrulyHorrifying Productions
There is two types of people in this entire conversation. People who dont like the music and fans of the music. Neither one can lose at the argument because both are providing theories that are un-falsifiable, one saying that the music is bad and one saying it is good. Neither of the statements can be proven wrong because they are solely based on personal opinion one can tell the other as many things as they want to "prove" they're wrong but no one will ever come to conclusion because both people a basing their evidence on opinions. Therefore it is pointless to argue with one another; so share your opinion and view others opinions with open mindedness everyone's personal interpretation of art is meant to be different so don't ruin it by being egotistical about your own opinion. Art was never meant to mean one thing it was meant to mean many things to many people.
deathtokoalas
you're trying to say something that intends to be technically correct, if somewhat lacking in it's application to art, but you're both interpreting it badly and misunderstanding what is written here.
i've been blatantly clear that i'm not judging this, but simply pointing out that the marketing is terrible. this isn't punk, and shouldn't be marketed as though it is. i wouldn't have even found my way here to this page at all if it weren't for the bad marketing. i don't often click through to bands that sound like bon jovi. what i'm irritated about is actually that i was tricked into listening to this at all. had it just been marketed as radio music like it should have been, i wouldn't have wasted my time with it. conversely, i think it likely that there's a lot of young people that could be connected to this by advertising it to a more bubblegum market.
i think that what you meant to say is rather that comparing music needs to be done in a way that is coherent. so, "dead kennedys are better than beethoven" isn't a meaningful statement. but, arguing over whether dead kennedys or black flag were better is something that can be done meaningfully.
TheStory SoFar
Let's just stop talking to her about it. She obviously doesn't understand that this sounds nothing like Bon Jovi and we don't want to listen to her act like she knows everything about music when she doesn't. I mean come on, she called this hair metal. She obviously has no idea what she's talking about so why allow her the satisfaction of your time to post a comment. Just leave her to her delusions and move on.
deathtokoalas
...but it does sound like bon jovi. bon jovi was exceedingly melodic corporate rock music without any kind of discernible message that was centered around fashion, designed for arena rock play and radio domination. this is precisely the same thing. they just have a different fashion sense, because they're separated by a generation. i'm sorry you don't see the comparison.
listen to this and then listen to "you give love a bad name" and tell me it isn't the same genre.
as for my own music, i don't think it's questionable that it is produced at a far higher level of detail and production. however, it isn't remotely comparable to any kind of corporate rock music. it's flat out moronic to try and compare a four minute radio song to a forty-five minute symphony. they're created for different purposes, and listened to for different reasons. i'm not going to reach any points of reflection listening to weezer (although i may still think it's fun from time to time), nor am i going to have fun dancing to arvo part at the local bar. i don't suffer idiots well, and have just flat out blocked that hopeless dipshit.
people (and especially you shallow corporate emo / hair metal "punks") need to learn not to dismiss things that they don't understand. i wouldn't expect many people that post here to understand the music i produce, but i'd rather they admit that than ignorantly kneejerk and dismiss it.
Erik Paulson
Hold up, you are comparing the two based on their business model, but your logic is heavily flawed. The business model of hair metal incorporated giant record labels, huge budgets, overbearing guitarists, band antics, ect. The lyrics are unarguably more interesting in this genre. To assume that people here wouldn't understand what you produce is also stupid. You constantly post about Adrian Belew, an artist who hasn't done anything particularly interesting since the 80's. In summation, It's fine that you don't like this, but you need to reconsider your comparison.
deathtokoalas
one of the strongest comparisons is in the lyrics. the primary concept within hair metal lyrics was the objectification of women, either directly through reduction to "sexual play thing" or abstractly into evil, jezebel types. that's why i picked that particular bon jovi track. the thematic unity into what has been called emo, with all it's woes of sexual malice, is heavy-handed - and, i would argue, mostly linear in direct influence.
i have to separate out a few acts. i think i was checking out citizen in the first place because they were touring with defeater, who are lyrically not at all comparable (and, musically, really are pretty "grunge"). then there's la dispute, which take the emo stereotypes to a transcendent point of absurdity (and i'd argue are actually mostly descendent from tool and the mars volta). so, there are certainly examples where what is called emo has more interesting lyrics than what is called hair metal. but, i think it's a stretch to compare citizen to defeater or la dispute or put them into the same genre in the first place. that is to say that this argument is not applicable to this band.
rather, overall, it's the comparisons in the lyrics that dominate.
how much classical music do you listen to, erik? how much do (or did) your parents listen to? how much do (or did) your grandparents listen to?
now, as for belew, he's been on my mind lately because i run a sort of a hobby review site. he happens to be my current topic of review. in actuality, belew's solo work in the 80s was terrible - mostly second rate bowie and byrne knockoffs. this is widely acknowledged. he was, however, involved in some of the most important records of the 90s. for example, he was responsible for most of nine inch nails' lead guitar work in the mid to late 90s (including on the downward spiral). his "strong period" actually begins in the mid-90s (when he was in his mid 40s), when he stopped trying to be somebody he wasn't.
you'd do well to have a little bit of respect for important and influential artists, rather than buy into the continued corporate narrative of generational overturn. when you grow up a little bit, you'll understand that age is something the industry correlates with music to create specialized markets, and pushing that narrative pretty much makes you a tool.
the site is over here for the curious:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/music/index/index.html
kurtless guhle
i don't know about you guys but music is suppose to bring people together, hold hands while singing the lyrics to your favorite song. not this shit, to be honest i thank the internet for showing me music but fuck all you hurting people craving attention. music is the only thing that makes sense in this world and you are ruining it one step at a time
deathtokoalas
ugh. fucking hippies.
world's full of conflict, man. best way to reach nirvana (pun not intended) is to shoot yourself in the forehead.
the hippies’ approach to revolution:
GUYS WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG.
bosses should love their employees as the force which gives them life and luxury, and employees should love their bosses for expropriating their labour.
marx is bad karma, man.
danny shuddup
For the record, they aren't hair metal, and I doubt anybody likes them for their looks. I like the band and no disrespect is meant but the singer sort of looks like Pepper from American Horror Story: Asylum. But yeah, look at their Waiting Room set and you can see that they aren't hair metal...
deathtokoalas
that reference means nothing to me. but this discussion has already been had, and it's already been explained that contemporary hair metal looks a little bit different than it used to - and that, musically, it's in the same category.
cklin114
"and that, musically, it's in the same category."
for fuck's sake, shut the fuck up
deathtokoalas
yeah, great. i provide all kinds of valid comparisons about the shared misogyny, melodic approaches and aesthetics of emo and hair metal, and your response is "shut the fuck up".
i'd rather extend the invitation to you, all of the fucking whiny brats that listen to this and all of the bands that perpetuate the continued idiocy.
danny shuddup
You shouldn't really be so judgemental when your own music is shit... And you look like fucking tiny tim
deathtokoalas
again, i'm not about to take critical evaluation from people that listen to glossy pop music. i wouldn't expect you to remotely understand anything that demonstrates any kind of depth.
people that listen to this kind of radio drivel are not my "target demographic" (if you'll allow me to be crude), and i really couldn't care less what you think - other than to correct your constant ignorance and/or tell you to shut up because you're being fucking annoying, yet again.
i was here to check out a band that was touring with defeater, and agreed with somebody's revolted reaction. because this is revoltingly bad, especially in comparison to something as in depth and intense as defeater. i would have probably skipped the show, had defeater not cancelled (and made the show not worth attending).
nor, again, was i intending to be particularly insulting. i was simply drawing attention to the reality that it sounds a whole lot like bon jovi.
danny shuddup
It sounds like your target is to not have a demographic
deathtokoalas
it's music for adults and precocious young people, which i'm not going to find many of here. i'm probably at least ten years older than you are, possibly closer to or maybe even more than fifteen (although probably not as many as twenty). and maybe i grew up too fast. but i happen to have a soft spot for no bullshit, riff-heavy, solid grunge (like defeater, not like this), which brought me into contact with this. i wouldn't normally go anywhere near this type of music or the people that listen to it...
danny shuddup
You might be confusing precocious with pretentious
deathtokoalas
no. rather, i'd suggest you don't know what either word means.
Matt Gaub
Mom- "Hey honey, what did you do today?"
You- "LEAVE ME ALONE, MOM! I'm getting into pointless Youtube arguments! I know more about music than anyone, and everyone needs to know that! Now make me my goddamn hot pocket!"
Mom- "Sounds good! Pepperoni pizza or ham and cheese?"
You- "HAM AND CHEESE! IT'S THE ORIGINAL!"
deathtokoalas
shut up and click my links.
and, yes, it's a far better idea than paying $50 to play an empty bar (plus 1 or 2 hopeless hipsters), while the kids stay home and surf their tablets. especially in this cozy suburb of detroit...
maybe, one day i'll meet some musicians with similar tastes. but, it hasn't happened yet, and i'm not counting on it.
so, shut up and click my links.
Memphis. Methods
You stated, "i actually don't know what these kids look like either, i just assumed they have long hair and wear their shirts open. that's what they sound like, anyways..." You just proved a lot of people's arguments about you. You stated they were a hair band yet you don't know what they look like."it's hair metal, and the demographic is teenage girls that think the singer is cute." You also stated above that you assumed. Assuming lead you to this long argument you've got yourself into. I understand that you meant no harm and you are probably trolling, but this has gone rather farther than expected I bet. This is something that will never end musically. No one really knows what genre something is. We all THINK we know when in reality we have no idea. We are trained by ear to hear what we think. We can think that John Mayer is alternative, but someone else may say, "no no there's no way. He sounds Indie or folk rock to me!" No one is right or wrong. It's solely based on opinion. I hope you can understand my viewpoint on this subject. Thank you.
deathtokoalas
well, no. the evidence is the music. it may not look like a duck, but it walks like one and quacks like one. you can put a duck in a new suit, but it's still a duck. i don't have to know what they look like in order to understand what it is.
they don't have to have long hair and wear their shirts open to be hair metal. it's sort of an out of date caricature, which is something i pointed out repeatedly. and, you may try to gain a sense of humour about it, because you're missing the joke.
they write catchy, vacuous songs about broken relationships. that's what hair metal is, and what ian mackeye was trying to copy back in the 80s in order to sell more records to young girls.
Memphis. Methods
then again someone can say they make pop music. Pop is obviously what you just described.. Broken relationships and catchy lyrics. So do indie and alternative bands. You're basically describing every genre out there.
deathtokoalas
hair metal, pop, blues, emo, whatever - they're all basically the same thing. the point is that this isn't punk rock. what i was trying to express, initially, is that it sounds like bon jovi, not that it fits the precise definition of any specific genre. i brought in genre markers to solidify the bon jovi sound-alike comparison, not the other way around.
Memphis. Methods
I'm not talking about Bon Jovi. I don't listen to him.
deathtokoalas
bon jovi was a band, not a person, and it's an important difference because jon bon jovi mostly wrote ballads as a solo artist but the band, bon jovi, more or less invented what we now refer to as "emo".
if you like this, you should check out new jersey.
yes, they wrote an album called new jersey. because they were from new jersey. just.....like....
Evanya Parker
Honestly, if you don't like them; fair enough. But don't comment your unwanted opinion. The comments should only really be open to people who ENJOY the music and like it. We don't want to hear what you have to say :)
deathtokoalas
why do you think i care what you think, or that you're entitled to a greater share of the comment space?
Evanya Parker
I'm not entitled to a greater share of the comment space at all. I think everyone who enjoys the music and maybe even has some actual CONSTRUCTIVE criticism (which is rather pointless as the band wouldn't see it anyway) towards the music video should be allowed a greater space of the comment section than you.
deathtokoalas
well, that's nice. thanks for sharing.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
this is mainstream crap, you buffoon.
Nowell Kishimoto
oh, so this is on MTV right? And the radio? Yeah, thought so. Smh.
deathtokoalas
well, there's lots of shitty bands out there that haven't hit a break, and probably never will. that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's written for mtv and radio or not. and this clearly was....
George Porte
You are the epitome of music snob elitist. Everything you say is pretentious. There are varying amounts of inaccessibility for music depending on how much attention you are willing to invest into it. Nobody is going to look at this album and say it's one of the best albums of all time, obviously. But that isn't what it's supposed to be and I think you're missing the point of it. No, this isn't relabeled hair metal about fashion sex drugs and rock n roll, it's literally a group of childhood friends who are like 19 writing easy going (and loosely MBV influenced) alt rock with pretty generic but relatable emo lyrics that a teenager would really empathize with. But according to you're logic every single artist has to put out music as challenging as say, the movie donnie darko is. But in reality, there are different types of music for people who prefer a different amount of depth. It's like saying a comedy movie like wayne's world is bad because it doesn't break any molds or try to be something different when in reality it doesn't have to in order to be considered a good movie. Anyway, music taste is completely subjective so you're entitled to your opinion; but if you base everything about an artist on how expiremental/avant garde or how "corporate" they are, I think you're missing the bigger picture, honestly.
deathtokoalas
indeed. buy more disposable garbage. keeps the economy going.
and i need to point out again that i was checking out an opening act and trying to soften somebody's criticism by pointing out that, as boring as it may be, it is what it is. i don't go around looking for 80s radio rock to criticize....
i didn't make it to the show for a variety of reasons. the process of getting papers to cross from windsor to detroit has proven absurdly slow. gotta make sure terrorists like me have a hard time of it, i guess. second, i don't think defeater made the show, anyways. something to do with a sore back.
i'd not have thought anything else of this if people hadn't continued responding for months and months. and, i'd have closed the thread and deleted most of the responses weeks ago if i was unkie elvis up there. alas...
Bearslikejaimie
This comment is really pointless. Lol
deathtokoalas
you're subscribing to this thread, admit it. which frightens me.
Adam Moscinski
people like you make me hate people
deathtokoalas
the feeling's probably mutual, kid.
Wow. Boring! This crap put me to sleep! Where the fuck does a band like this get its influence from? Cough syrup commercials?
deathtokoalas
sounds like bon jovi, mostly.
i honestly don't care if people enjoy this. i just wish they'd stop marketing it wrong. it's hair metal, and the demographic is teenage girls that think the singer is cute.
arod13arod
in what fucking deluded world do you live in that you think this sounds even remotely like bon jovi?
deathtokoalas
i don't know how you can miss it, really. but i think thursday sounded like bon jovi, too. that whole jersey punk thing was 90% bon jovi, 10% ian mackeye.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
i'm sorry that you don't realize that corporate emo and hair metal are indistinguishable up to the age of the listener.
Nickelpitts
Stop hating on a talented band. If you don't like it, listen to your own crap. Just don't make fun of people's musical interest.
deathtokoalas
i didn't, honestly. i stated specifically that i have no ill will at all whatsoever in any form or content towards people who enjoy music of this particular variety. my interjection into the conversation was even with the specific intent of converting a crude outburst of disgust into a more tolerant discourse. you oaf. that being said, my lack of ill will towards those that do enjoy this does not in any way preclude me from making objective, comparable statements about the nature of said sound - namely that emo of the pop-punk variety is virtually indistinguishable from bon jovi in terms of melody and songwriting structure. they may have different hair. i'm talking about sound, though.
so, might i reflect to those that feel the need to jump to conclusions that inquiry is not equivalent to hostility and people that don't enjoy the same music as you don't therefore (implication i think, here, is key) hate you.
DatzWhatsUp
hahahahaha bon jovi hahahahaha
Nickelpitts
You know showing off your vocabulary to defend your unneeded criticism doesn't make you appear smarter. If anything calling me a "oaf" does nothing but convince me further that you simply consider yourself as someone who has a issue with tearing a talented band down in order to make yourself seem like a musical prodigy. At least they are following their dream >.> not making fun of other musicians.
deathtokoalas
ok, but now you're basically conceding the point that i wasn't intending to tear anybody down and tearing down a strawman of me instead. and, to that end, i wish you great fun. i'd even help brainstorm strawman ideas to tear down if i didn't think it was a waste of time.
TheStory SoFar
Actually I've been listening to them for awhile now and I never once looked at the band members so no, not everyone likes bands for their looks. Its how they can relate to lyrics and how they like the sound. Get your head out of your ass and go somewhere else.
deathtokoalas
nonono, i'm the one that tells people they have their heads in their asses.
my statements admittedly excluded the caveat that some people have incomprehensibly bad taste. apologies. but, on the balance of probabilities...
i actually don't know what these kids look like either, i just assumed they have long hair and wear their shirts open. that's what they sound like, anyways...
TrulyHorrifying Productions
There is two types of people in this entire conversation. People who dont like the music and fans of the music. Neither one can lose at the argument because both are providing theories that are un-falsifiable, one saying that the music is bad and one saying it is good. Neither of the statements can be proven wrong because they are solely based on personal opinion one can tell the other as many things as they want to "prove" they're wrong but no one will ever come to conclusion because both people a basing their evidence on opinions. Therefore it is pointless to argue with one another; so share your opinion and view others opinions with open mindedness everyone's personal interpretation of art is meant to be different so don't ruin it by being egotistical about your own opinion. Art was never meant to mean one thing it was meant to mean many things to many people.
deathtokoalas
you're trying to say something that intends to be technically correct, if somewhat lacking in it's application to art, but you're both interpreting it badly and misunderstanding what is written here.
i've been blatantly clear that i'm not judging this, but simply pointing out that the marketing is terrible. this isn't punk, and shouldn't be marketed as though it is. i wouldn't have even found my way here to this page at all if it weren't for the bad marketing. i don't often click through to bands that sound like bon jovi. what i'm irritated about is actually that i was tricked into listening to this at all. had it just been marketed as radio music like it should have been, i wouldn't have wasted my time with it. conversely, i think it likely that there's a lot of young people that could be connected to this by advertising it to a more bubblegum market.
i think that what you meant to say is rather that comparing music needs to be done in a way that is coherent. so, "dead kennedys are better than beethoven" isn't a meaningful statement. but, arguing over whether dead kennedys or black flag were better is something that can be done meaningfully.
TheStory SoFar
Let's just stop talking to her about it. She obviously doesn't understand that this sounds nothing like Bon Jovi and we don't want to listen to her act like she knows everything about music when she doesn't. I mean come on, she called this hair metal. She obviously has no idea what she's talking about so why allow her the satisfaction of your time to post a comment. Just leave her to her delusions and move on.
deathtokoalas
...but it does sound like bon jovi. bon jovi was exceedingly melodic corporate rock music without any kind of discernible message that was centered around fashion, designed for arena rock play and radio domination. this is precisely the same thing. they just have a different fashion sense, because they're separated by a generation. i'm sorry you don't see the comparison.
listen to this and then listen to "you give love a bad name" and tell me it isn't the same genre.
as for my own music, i don't think it's questionable that it is produced at a far higher level of detail and production. however, it isn't remotely comparable to any kind of corporate rock music. it's flat out moronic to try and compare a four minute radio song to a forty-five minute symphony. they're created for different purposes, and listened to for different reasons. i'm not going to reach any points of reflection listening to weezer (although i may still think it's fun from time to time), nor am i going to have fun dancing to arvo part at the local bar. i don't suffer idiots well, and have just flat out blocked that hopeless dipshit.
people (and especially you shallow corporate emo / hair metal "punks") need to learn not to dismiss things that they don't understand. i wouldn't expect many people that post here to understand the music i produce, but i'd rather they admit that than ignorantly kneejerk and dismiss it.
Erik Paulson
Hold up, you are comparing the two based on their business model, but your logic is heavily flawed. The business model of hair metal incorporated giant record labels, huge budgets, overbearing guitarists, band antics, ect. The lyrics are unarguably more interesting in this genre. To assume that people here wouldn't understand what you produce is also stupid. You constantly post about Adrian Belew, an artist who hasn't done anything particularly interesting since the 80's. In summation, It's fine that you don't like this, but you need to reconsider your comparison.
deathtokoalas
one of the strongest comparisons is in the lyrics. the primary concept within hair metal lyrics was the objectification of women, either directly through reduction to "sexual play thing" or abstractly into evil, jezebel types. that's why i picked that particular bon jovi track. the thematic unity into what has been called emo, with all it's woes of sexual malice, is heavy-handed - and, i would argue, mostly linear in direct influence.
i have to separate out a few acts. i think i was checking out citizen in the first place because they were touring with defeater, who are lyrically not at all comparable (and, musically, really are pretty "grunge"). then there's la dispute, which take the emo stereotypes to a transcendent point of absurdity (and i'd argue are actually mostly descendent from tool and the mars volta). so, there are certainly examples where what is called emo has more interesting lyrics than what is called hair metal. but, i think it's a stretch to compare citizen to defeater or la dispute or put them into the same genre in the first place. that is to say that this argument is not applicable to this band.
rather, overall, it's the comparisons in the lyrics that dominate.
how much classical music do you listen to, erik? how much do (or did) your parents listen to? how much do (or did) your grandparents listen to?
now, as for belew, he's been on my mind lately because i run a sort of a hobby review site. he happens to be my current topic of review. in actuality, belew's solo work in the 80s was terrible - mostly second rate bowie and byrne knockoffs. this is widely acknowledged. he was, however, involved in some of the most important records of the 90s. for example, he was responsible for most of nine inch nails' lead guitar work in the mid to late 90s (including on the downward spiral). his "strong period" actually begins in the mid-90s (when he was in his mid 40s), when he stopped trying to be somebody he wasn't.
you'd do well to have a little bit of respect for important and influential artists, rather than buy into the continued corporate narrative of generational overturn. when you grow up a little bit, you'll understand that age is something the industry correlates with music to create specialized markets, and pushing that narrative pretty much makes you a tool.
the site is over here for the curious:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/music/index/index.html
kurtless guhle
i don't know about you guys but music is suppose to bring people together, hold hands while singing the lyrics to your favorite song. not this shit, to be honest i thank the internet for showing me music but fuck all you hurting people craving attention. music is the only thing that makes sense in this world and you are ruining it one step at a time
deathtokoalas
ugh. fucking hippies.
world's full of conflict, man. best way to reach nirvana (pun not intended) is to shoot yourself in the forehead.
the hippies’ approach to revolution:
GUYS WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG.
bosses should love their employees as the force which gives them life and luxury, and employees should love their bosses for expropriating their labour.
marx is bad karma, man.
danny shuddup
For the record, they aren't hair metal, and I doubt anybody likes them for their looks. I like the band and no disrespect is meant but the singer sort of looks like Pepper from American Horror Story: Asylum. But yeah, look at their Waiting Room set and you can see that they aren't hair metal...
deathtokoalas
that reference means nothing to me. but this discussion has already been had, and it's already been explained that contemporary hair metal looks a little bit different than it used to - and that, musically, it's in the same category.
cklin114
"and that, musically, it's in the same category."
for fuck's sake, shut the fuck up
deathtokoalas
yeah, great. i provide all kinds of valid comparisons about the shared misogyny, melodic approaches and aesthetics of emo and hair metal, and your response is "shut the fuck up".
i'd rather extend the invitation to you, all of the fucking whiny brats that listen to this and all of the bands that perpetuate the continued idiocy.
danny shuddup
You shouldn't really be so judgemental when your own music is shit... And you look like fucking tiny tim
deathtokoalas
again, i'm not about to take critical evaluation from people that listen to glossy pop music. i wouldn't expect you to remotely understand anything that demonstrates any kind of depth.
people that listen to this kind of radio drivel are not my "target demographic" (if you'll allow me to be crude), and i really couldn't care less what you think - other than to correct your constant ignorance and/or tell you to shut up because you're being fucking annoying, yet again.
i was here to check out a band that was touring with defeater, and agreed with somebody's revolted reaction. because this is revoltingly bad, especially in comparison to something as in depth and intense as defeater. i would have probably skipped the show, had defeater not cancelled (and made the show not worth attending).
nor, again, was i intending to be particularly insulting. i was simply drawing attention to the reality that it sounds a whole lot like bon jovi.
danny shuddup
It sounds like your target is to not have a demographic
deathtokoalas
it's music for adults and precocious young people, which i'm not going to find many of here. i'm probably at least ten years older than you are, possibly closer to or maybe even more than fifteen (although probably not as many as twenty). and maybe i grew up too fast. but i happen to have a soft spot for no bullshit, riff-heavy, solid grunge (like defeater, not like this), which brought me into contact with this. i wouldn't normally go anywhere near this type of music or the people that listen to it...
danny shuddup
You might be confusing precocious with pretentious
deathtokoalas
no. rather, i'd suggest you don't know what either word means.
Matt Gaub
Mom- "Hey honey, what did you do today?"
You- "LEAVE ME ALONE, MOM! I'm getting into pointless Youtube arguments! I know more about music than anyone, and everyone needs to know that! Now make me my goddamn hot pocket!"
Mom- "Sounds good! Pepperoni pizza or ham and cheese?"
You- "HAM AND CHEESE! IT'S THE ORIGINAL!"
deathtokoalas
shut up and click my links.
and, yes, it's a far better idea than paying $50 to play an empty bar (plus 1 or 2 hopeless hipsters), while the kids stay home and surf their tablets. especially in this cozy suburb of detroit...
maybe, one day i'll meet some musicians with similar tastes. but, it hasn't happened yet, and i'm not counting on it.
so, shut up and click my links.
Memphis. Methods
You stated, "i actually don't know what these kids look like either, i just assumed they have long hair and wear their shirts open. that's what they sound like, anyways..." You just proved a lot of people's arguments about you. You stated they were a hair band yet you don't know what they look like."it's hair metal, and the demographic is teenage girls that think the singer is cute." You also stated above that you assumed. Assuming lead you to this long argument you've got yourself into. I understand that you meant no harm and you are probably trolling, but this has gone rather farther than expected I bet. This is something that will never end musically. No one really knows what genre something is. We all THINK we know when in reality we have no idea. We are trained by ear to hear what we think. We can think that John Mayer is alternative, but someone else may say, "no no there's no way. He sounds Indie or folk rock to me!" No one is right or wrong. It's solely based on opinion. I hope you can understand my viewpoint on this subject. Thank you.
deathtokoalas
well, no. the evidence is the music. it may not look like a duck, but it walks like one and quacks like one. you can put a duck in a new suit, but it's still a duck. i don't have to know what they look like in order to understand what it is.
they don't have to have long hair and wear their shirts open to be hair metal. it's sort of an out of date caricature, which is something i pointed out repeatedly. and, you may try to gain a sense of humour about it, because you're missing the joke.
they write catchy, vacuous songs about broken relationships. that's what hair metal is, and what ian mackeye was trying to copy back in the 80s in order to sell more records to young girls.
Memphis. Methods
then again someone can say they make pop music. Pop is obviously what you just described.. Broken relationships and catchy lyrics. So do indie and alternative bands. You're basically describing every genre out there.
deathtokoalas
hair metal, pop, blues, emo, whatever - they're all basically the same thing. the point is that this isn't punk rock. what i was trying to express, initially, is that it sounds like bon jovi, not that it fits the precise definition of any specific genre. i brought in genre markers to solidify the bon jovi sound-alike comparison, not the other way around.
Memphis. Methods
I'm not talking about Bon Jovi. I don't listen to him.
deathtokoalas
bon jovi was a band, not a person, and it's an important difference because jon bon jovi mostly wrote ballads as a solo artist but the band, bon jovi, more or less invented what we now refer to as "emo".
if you like this, you should check out new jersey.
yes, they wrote an album called new jersey. because they were from new jersey. just.....like....
Evanya Parker
Honestly, if you don't like them; fair enough. But don't comment your unwanted opinion. The comments should only really be open to people who ENJOY the music and like it. We don't want to hear what you have to say :)
deathtokoalas
why do you think i care what you think, or that you're entitled to a greater share of the comment space?
Evanya Parker
I'm not entitled to a greater share of the comment space at all. I think everyone who enjoys the music and maybe even has some actual CONSTRUCTIVE criticism (which is rather pointless as the band wouldn't see it anyway) towards the music video should be allowed a greater space of the comment section than you.
deathtokoalas
well, that's nice. thanks for sharing.
(deleted)
deathtokoalas
this is mainstream crap, you buffoon.
Nowell Kishimoto
oh, so this is on MTV right? And the radio? Yeah, thought so. Smh.
deathtokoalas
well, there's lots of shitty bands out there that haven't hit a break, and probably never will. that doesn't have anything to do with whether it's written for mtv and radio or not. and this clearly was....
George Porte
You are the epitome of music snob elitist. Everything you say is pretentious. There are varying amounts of inaccessibility for music depending on how much attention you are willing to invest into it. Nobody is going to look at this album and say it's one of the best albums of all time, obviously. But that isn't what it's supposed to be and I think you're missing the point of it. No, this isn't relabeled hair metal about fashion sex drugs and rock n roll, it's literally a group of childhood friends who are like 19 writing easy going (and loosely MBV influenced) alt rock with pretty generic but relatable emo lyrics that a teenager would really empathize with. But according to you're logic every single artist has to put out music as challenging as say, the movie donnie darko is. But in reality, there are different types of music for people who prefer a different amount of depth. It's like saying a comedy movie like wayne's world is bad because it doesn't break any molds or try to be something different when in reality it doesn't have to in order to be considered a good movie. Anyway, music taste is completely subjective so you're entitled to your opinion; but if you base everything about an artist on how expiremental/avant garde or how "corporate" they are, I think you're missing the bigger picture, honestly.
deathtokoalas
indeed. buy more disposable garbage. keeps the economy going.
and i need to point out again that i was checking out an opening act and trying to soften somebody's criticism by pointing out that, as boring as it may be, it is what it is. i don't go around looking for 80s radio rock to criticize....
i didn't make it to the show for a variety of reasons. the process of getting papers to cross from windsor to detroit has proven absurdly slow. gotta make sure terrorists like me have a hard time of it, i guess. second, i don't think defeater made the show, anyways. something to do with a sore back.
i'd not have thought anything else of this if people hadn't continued responding for months and months. and, i'd have closed the thread and deleted most of the responses weeks ago if i was unkie elvis up there. alas...
Bearslikejaimie
This comment is really pointless. Lol
deathtokoalas
you're subscribing to this thread, admit it. which frightens me.
Adam Moscinski
people like you make me hate people
deathtokoalas
the feeling's probably mutual, kid.
corporate personhood as a red herring for the problems created by limited liability
deathtokoalas
it's quite the opposite. individualism doesn't make any sense in the context of socialized production. corporate personhood is conceptually a collectivist concept, rooted around the idea that the entire corporation exists as a singular entity, rather than as a collection of individuals. abolishing corporate personhood would be a return to liberal individualism. pretty much everybody across all spectrums is terribly confused on the topic...
the function of corporate personhood as a "legal fiction" was simply to provide standing. let's go back to before corporate personhood. let's say a corporation sold you something with false advertising, or endangered your health. you would have no legal remedy to reverse the situation that involved the corporation itself because you couldn't sue because they didn't have standing because they weren't people. rather, you'd have to sue the individual within the corporation that was responsible. this was considered impossible, due to the socialization of production (which is just a fancy way to say that the nature of modern production is not reductionist). it neither made sense to sue an individual worker, nor a middle manager, nor a corporate director. so, we constructed this fantasy that the corporation itself is an entity.
that itself is not a problem. without the existence of corporate personhood, many important environmental and aboriginal cases could not have gone forward at all, let alone amounted in victory. the left doesn't really want to abolish this. it's just infamously (and stereotypically) clueless about law.
rather, the thing the left should seek to abolish is the other side of corporate personhood, which is limited liability. see, we live in a class system. so, when they set up this fantasy of a corporation as a person, they naturally set up a legal shield around investors. certain people will make lame excuses about how this is designed to encourage risk in investment. even if this is true, and it isn't, it was just the investor class blatantly legislating itself above the law, we shouldn't want to encourage investments that are risky because they're environmentally damaging or investments that risk people's savings. it's institutional insanity.
...but what's going to happen if you abolish corporate personhood is that the worker on the oil rig making shit wages is going to become legally liable for any mistakes he might make. collectivists of any kind should strenuously oppose this!
============
Bushrod Rust Johnson
What a load of collectivist, progressive shit. Corporations have the same rights as people because the individual persons who are part of corporations do not give up their individual rights just because they form groups. The law does not say and has never said that corporations are literal people.
George Merkert
Corporations are collections of people working together to achieve goals but they're not the least bit democratic. "One person one vote" is the democratic ideal but that ideal has no place in governance of a corporation. Corporations are governed by boards of directors whose charters demand that they pursue profit as their only goal. That leaves out a raft of important goals like providing clean water for all citizens, administering justice, securing our country's borders. The law does, in fact, give corporations literal Constitutional rights. Notably, the right of free speech which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United ruling to mean that corporations have the right to give unlimited amounts of financial support to any political cause or public official. That means that the small groups of people (Boards of Directors) that govern corporations and who can command control of many million$ use that money to influence whatever political issue they choose. That means corporations – whose wealth comes from the collective efforts of many people but whose wealth is controlled by only a very few – have vastly more power to influence our country's political process than any one individual US citizen can have. That violates the democratic principal of one person one vote. With which part of this thinking do you disagree?
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+George Merkert
The reason why constitutional rights, such as speech, should apply to corporations is that denying them any right would effectively also deny an individual's rights. When an organization "speaks", it is actually an individual choosing to speak or a collection of individuals choosing to speak. Preventing anyone from spending money on causes they support also results denying individuals or organizations of individuals the means to communicate or organize. Anyone should be allowed to spend as much of their own money, including any money they have been authorized by others to spend, as they want on any cause they support. If this results in undesirable political outcomes, then the real problem is the stupid powers granted to government. This includes all economic and social issues. Without these powers, there would be much less reason to spend money on political causes. If someone does not like what a corporation or other organization is doing with its money, that person can choose not to invest or do business with the organization. Once you voluntarily give your money away, it is no longer your money. And you are still free to vote however you like, how a corporation spends its money actually has no discernible physical effect on anyone's ability to vote.
George Merkert
Thanks for your answer but I don't understand how denying a corporation a right denies an individual a right. A corporate executive when speaking for his/her organization is speaking with the power of the collection of individuals that make up that organization. Executives hew to the ideas that the Board of Directors of the corporation have authorized the executive to promote. The BOD represents the interests of the organization as a whole and not the interests of any individual within the corporation. Individuals with less power in the corporation may have very different ideas than the official line of the organization that they work for and depend on for a paycheck. So I don't see how when a corporation speaks it's speaking for an individual. If I'm missing your point, please clarify so I understand.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+George Merkert
Quite simply, there are no exceptions in the first amendment. Corporations don't actually speak unless at least one real, individual person speaks. The views of a collection of individuals are still also the views of at least one or two individual individuals, and any of them has the right to speak or refuse to speak as an individual or as a representative or in support of the views that a collection of individuals may or may not hold. If any member of a formal organization feels strongly enough against the views of the majority of the other members, they are free to attempt to persuade them otherwise or are free to stop supporting it, working for it, giving money to it, or owning a part of it. The other members should be free to send them packing, too. Nobody is entitled to be a part of any private voluntary social structure or force the other members to run it a certain way.
deathtokoalas
it's quite the opposite. individualism doesn't make any sense in the context of socialized production. corporate personhood is conceptually a collectivist concept, rooted around the idea that the entire corporation exists as a singular entity, rather than as a collection of individuals. abolishing corporate personhood would be a return to liberal individualism. pretty much everybody across all spectrums is terribly confused on the topic...
the function of corporate personhood as a "legal fiction" was simply to provide standing. let's go back to before corporate personhood. let's say a corporation sold you something with false advertising, or endangered your health. you would have no legal remedy to reverse the situation that involved the corporation itself because you couldn't sue because they didn't have standing because they weren't people. rather, you'd have to sue the individual within the corporation that was responsible. this was considered impossible, due to the socialization of production (which is just a fancy way to say that the nature of modern production is not reductionist). it neither made sense to sue an individual worker, nor a middle manager, nor a corporate director. so, we constructed this fantasy that the corporation itself is an entity.
that itself is not a problem. without the existence of corporate personhood, many important environmental and aboriginal cases could not have gone forward at all, let alone amounted in victory. the left doesn't really want to abolish this. it's just infamously (and stereotypically) clueless about law.
rather, the thing the left should seek to abolish is the other side of corporate personhood, which is limited liability. see, we live in a class system. so, when they set up this fantasy of a corporation as a person, they naturally set up a legal shield around investors. certain people will make lame excuses about how this is designed to encourage risk in investment. even if this is true, and it isn't, it was just the investor class blatantly legislating itself above the law, we shouldn't want to encourage investments that are risky because they're environmentally damaging or investments that risk people's savings. it's institutional insanity.
...but what's going to happen if you abolish corporate personhood is that the worker on the oil rig making shit wages is going to become legally liable for any mistakes he might make. collectivists of any kind should strenuously oppose this!
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
Actually, in limited liability, individual employees, board members, and investors still can be held legally liable for fuckups or deliberate wrongdoings that can be traced back to them. Limited liability protects individuals who weren't personally responsible for a problem, but investors and owners still risk losing up to their entire investment. Speaking in terms of individuals making a personal choice to include themselves in or leave an entity consisting of a collection of other individuals at will does make sense, this is not the same thing as "collectivism" of positive-rights based rights, responsibilities, and entitlements. When I use the word "collectivism", anyway, I am talking about people telling other people what to do for intentions (but often not results) of a subjective "greater good".
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
"Limited liability protects individuals who weren't personally responsible for a problem" .
..and this is equivalent to the investor class legislating itself above the law. if you profit from organized crime, that's called money laundering. if you take part in it through financial aid, that's called abetting a crime. yet, shareholders are protected from accusations of the sort through the concept of limited liability. shareholders are guilty by means of enabling and should be prosecuted strenuously for it. this would provide a strong disincentive for investing in unethical companies, which would prevent them from existing. it's the thing that leftists actually want, even if they lack the education to articulate it. it's a neat trick to use a concept of collectivism that isn't remotely relevant in context. collectivism is a dozen different things depending upon how one applies it. it can be a type of political organization, sure. yet, that's not what we're talking about. it's obviously certainly not "individualist" to gather a group of people together that function as a unity and declare them a singular entity - a corps, or a machine. a holistic whole. a hierarchical (unfortunately) hive. politically, that's called "corporatism", which is a type of political collectivism, and forms the ideological underpinning of our concepts of corporate legal personhood. right-wing liberals and individualists oppose this idea, by definition. of course, one can also have right-wing collectivists (like nazis or stalinists) but i don't wish to commit the error you did.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
Money laundering and abetting involve intent to support a crime. Limited liability doesn't protect people who directly enable or cause something through deliberate actions or negligence. It provides a limit to how much an employee, officer, or investor can be held responsible for not being able to babysit every fucking thing every moment. Companies already have plenty of incentive not to operate unethically because of the risk to owners and investors, and potential investors. Anyway, you know limited liability isn't going anywhere and you can't do anything about it. How is it not individualist for an individual to choose if he or she wants to associate with other individuals, as opposed to being forced to associate with others (what collectivism actually is)? Corporatism is what happens when you give government powers to set policies favorable to one business or another- which is what really enables most of whatever your hangups with THE CORPORASHUNS are. I'm not sure you can be sure you didn't commit a bunch of errors. Lets get one thing clear: collectivism is using force to tell other people what's "good" for "everyone".
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
i'll say you're providing a consistently right-wing idea of responsibility, but you're not addressing the core of the argument, which is that leftists do indeed think that shareholders should be liable for the consequences of their investments. investing in exxon comes with a high level of foresight that they're going to likely be involved in both negligent and genocidal behaviour. it ought to be the shareholder's responsibility to do that research before they invest and, if they don't, they ought to be prosecuted for it when it happens. the legality is something that would swing on a shift in philosophy. i mean, you're deriving your ideas from liberal axioms, but if we were to reject those liberal axioms then other conclusions would follow. obviously, the current incentive systems aren't working very well. corporatism is not at all what you think it is. you're using a colloquial definition that aligns more properly with a type of mercantilism. corporatism came out of an idea to merge guilds with the state by creating monopolies across industries. that worked itself out in the fascist era through the creation of large trusts that were under the control of state departments. i don't have the interest to explain this much further, other than to say you're not even close to it and you need to read up on the topic if you want to converse about it. mercantilism and corporatism are not related ideas, but you seem to have confused them as equal. none of this has anything to do with my basic observation that supporting corporate personhood is viewing the corporation as a holistic entity (a collectivist idea) and that rejecting corporate personhood is viewing the corporation as a collection of individuals (a liberal idea). to extrapolate it further through analogy: if these concepts were properly understood, thatcher would have said that corporate personhood could not exist because a corporation is merely a collection of people, and all the opposition to thatcher would have gasped and said she was out to lunch about it.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
"Genocidal behaviour", prosecuting shareholders, your simplistic view of things in terms of "left" versus "right"... I can see you are a well rounded and level headed person to have a discussion with. If someone within a company really did initiate some form of genocide, it should be really easy to hold that person accountable. Even the shareholders would have a valid moral and monetary claim against them. You are fucking hyperbolic and ridiculous.
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
not at all. it's relatively common for mining companies in latin america to literally commit crimes that are banned under the rome convention, which was a convention on war crimes. mass rape. burning entire villages. i claim that investors share responsibility for these crimes by enabling them through their investment. and i'd argue that the directors of these companies should be prosecuted as war criminals.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
This is shit that happens with easily manipulable and corrupt governments in third world shitholes that don't respect individual liberty, markets, and property rights. It doesn't matter how companies are set up. They get away with shit.
it's quite the opposite. individualism doesn't make any sense in the context of socialized production. corporate personhood is conceptually a collectivist concept, rooted around the idea that the entire corporation exists as a singular entity, rather than as a collection of individuals. abolishing corporate personhood would be a return to liberal individualism. pretty much everybody across all spectrums is terribly confused on the topic...
the function of corporate personhood as a "legal fiction" was simply to provide standing. let's go back to before corporate personhood. let's say a corporation sold you something with false advertising, or endangered your health. you would have no legal remedy to reverse the situation that involved the corporation itself because you couldn't sue because they didn't have standing because they weren't people. rather, you'd have to sue the individual within the corporation that was responsible. this was considered impossible, due to the socialization of production (which is just a fancy way to say that the nature of modern production is not reductionist). it neither made sense to sue an individual worker, nor a middle manager, nor a corporate director. so, we constructed this fantasy that the corporation itself is an entity.
that itself is not a problem. without the existence of corporate personhood, many important environmental and aboriginal cases could not have gone forward at all, let alone amounted in victory. the left doesn't really want to abolish this. it's just infamously (and stereotypically) clueless about law.
rather, the thing the left should seek to abolish is the other side of corporate personhood, which is limited liability. see, we live in a class system. so, when they set up this fantasy of a corporation as a person, they naturally set up a legal shield around investors. certain people will make lame excuses about how this is designed to encourage risk in investment. even if this is true, and it isn't, it was just the investor class blatantly legislating itself above the law, we shouldn't want to encourage investments that are risky because they're environmentally damaging or investments that risk people's savings. it's institutional insanity.
...but what's going to happen if you abolish corporate personhood is that the worker on the oil rig making shit wages is going to become legally liable for any mistakes he might make. collectivists of any kind should strenuously oppose this!
============
Bushrod Rust Johnson
What a load of collectivist, progressive shit. Corporations have the same rights as people because the individual persons who are part of corporations do not give up their individual rights just because they form groups. The law does not say and has never said that corporations are literal people.
George Merkert
Corporations are collections of people working together to achieve goals but they're not the least bit democratic. "One person one vote" is the democratic ideal but that ideal has no place in governance of a corporation. Corporations are governed by boards of directors whose charters demand that they pursue profit as their only goal. That leaves out a raft of important goals like providing clean water for all citizens, administering justice, securing our country's borders. The law does, in fact, give corporations literal Constitutional rights. Notably, the right of free speech which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United ruling to mean that corporations have the right to give unlimited amounts of financial support to any political cause or public official. That means that the small groups of people (Boards of Directors) that govern corporations and who can command control of many million$ use that money to influence whatever political issue they choose. That means corporations – whose wealth comes from the collective efforts of many people but whose wealth is controlled by only a very few – have vastly more power to influence our country's political process than any one individual US citizen can have. That violates the democratic principal of one person one vote. With which part of this thinking do you disagree?
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+George Merkert
The reason why constitutional rights, such as speech, should apply to corporations is that denying them any right would effectively also deny an individual's rights. When an organization "speaks", it is actually an individual choosing to speak or a collection of individuals choosing to speak. Preventing anyone from spending money on causes they support also results denying individuals or organizations of individuals the means to communicate or organize. Anyone should be allowed to spend as much of their own money, including any money they have been authorized by others to spend, as they want on any cause they support. If this results in undesirable political outcomes, then the real problem is the stupid powers granted to government. This includes all economic and social issues. Without these powers, there would be much less reason to spend money on political causes. If someone does not like what a corporation or other organization is doing with its money, that person can choose not to invest or do business with the organization. Once you voluntarily give your money away, it is no longer your money. And you are still free to vote however you like, how a corporation spends its money actually has no discernible physical effect on anyone's ability to vote.
George Merkert
Thanks for your answer but I don't understand how denying a corporation a right denies an individual a right. A corporate executive when speaking for his/her organization is speaking with the power of the collection of individuals that make up that organization. Executives hew to the ideas that the Board of Directors of the corporation have authorized the executive to promote. The BOD represents the interests of the organization as a whole and not the interests of any individual within the corporation. Individuals with less power in the corporation may have very different ideas than the official line of the organization that they work for and depend on for a paycheck. So I don't see how when a corporation speaks it's speaking for an individual. If I'm missing your point, please clarify so I understand.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+George Merkert
Quite simply, there are no exceptions in the first amendment. Corporations don't actually speak unless at least one real, individual person speaks. The views of a collection of individuals are still also the views of at least one or two individual individuals, and any of them has the right to speak or refuse to speak as an individual or as a representative or in support of the views that a collection of individuals may or may not hold. If any member of a formal organization feels strongly enough against the views of the majority of the other members, they are free to attempt to persuade them otherwise or are free to stop supporting it, working for it, giving money to it, or owning a part of it. The other members should be free to send them packing, too. Nobody is entitled to be a part of any private voluntary social structure or force the other members to run it a certain way.
deathtokoalas
it's quite the opposite. individualism doesn't make any sense in the context of socialized production. corporate personhood is conceptually a collectivist concept, rooted around the idea that the entire corporation exists as a singular entity, rather than as a collection of individuals. abolishing corporate personhood would be a return to liberal individualism. pretty much everybody across all spectrums is terribly confused on the topic...
the function of corporate personhood as a "legal fiction" was simply to provide standing. let's go back to before corporate personhood. let's say a corporation sold you something with false advertising, or endangered your health. you would have no legal remedy to reverse the situation that involved the corporation itself because you couldn't sue because they didn't have standing because they weren't people. rather, you'd have to sue the individual within the corporation that was responsible. this was considered impossible, due to the socialization of production (which is just a fancy way to say that the nature of modern production is not reductionist). it neither made sense to sue an individual worker, nor a middle manager, nor a corporate director. so, we constructed this fantasy that the corporation itself is an entity.
that itself is not a problem. without the existence of corporate personhood, many important environmental and aboriginal cases could not have gone forward at all, let alone amounted in victory. the left doesn't really want to abolish this. it's just infamously (and stereotypically) clueless about law.
rather, the thing the left should seek to abolish is the other side of corporate personhood, which is limited liability. see, we live in a class system. so, when they set up this fantasy of a corporation as a person, they naturally set up a legal shield around investors. certain people will make lame excuses about how this is designed to encourage risk in investment. even if this is true, and it isn't, it was just the investor class blatantly legislating itself above the law, we shouldn't want to encourage investments that are risky because they're environmentally damaging or investments that risk people's savings. it's institutional insanity.
...but what's going to happen if you abolish corporate personhood is that the worker on the oil rig making shit wages is going to become legally liable for any mistakes he might make. collectivists of any kind should strenuously oppose this!
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
Actually, in limited liability, individual employees, board members, and investors still can be held legally liable for fuckups or deliberate wrongdoings that can be traced back to them. Limited liability protects individuals who weren't personally responsible for a problem, but investors and owners still risk losing up to their entire investment. Speaking in terms of individuals making a personal choice to include themselves in or leave an entity consisting of a collection of other individuals at will does make sense, this is not the same thing as "collectivism" of positive-rights based rights, responsibilities, and entitlements. When I use the word "collectivism", anyway, I am talking about people telling other people what to do for intentions (but often not results) of a subjective "greater good".
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
"Limited liability protects individuals who weren't personally responsible for a problem" .
..and this is equivalent to the investor class legislating itself above the law. if you profit from organized crime, that's called money laundering. if you take part in it through financial aid, that's called abetting a crime. yet, shareholders are protected from accusations of the sort through the concept of limited liability. shareholders are guilty by means of enabling and should be prosecuted strenuously for it. this would provide a strong disincentive for investing in unethical companies, which would prevent them from existing. it's the thing that leftists actually want, even if they lack the education to articulate it. it's a neat trick to use a concept of collectivism that isn't remotely relevant in context. collectivism is a dozen different things depending upon how one applies it. it can be a type of political organization, sure. yet, that's not what we're talking about. it's obviously certainly not "individualist" to gather a group of people together that function as a unity and declare them a singular entity - a corps, or a machine. a holistic whole. a hierarchical (unfortunately) hive. politically, that's called "corporatism", which is a type of political collectivism, and forms the ideological underpinning of our concepts of corporate legal personhood. right-wing liberals and individualists oppose this idea, by definition. of course, one can also have right-wing collectivists (like nazis or stalinists) but i don't wish to commit the error you did.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
Money laundering and abetting involve intent to support a crime. Limited liability doesn't protect people who directly enable or cause something through deliberate actions or negligence. It provides a limit to how much an employee, officer, or investor can be held responsible for not being able to babysit every fucking thing every moment. Companies already have plenty of incentive not to operate unethically because of the risk to owners and investors, and potential investors. Anyway, you know limited liability isn't going anywhere and you can't do anything about it. How is it not individualist for an individual to choose if he or she wants to associate with other individuals, as opposed to being forced to associate with others (what collectivism actually is)? Corporatism is what happens when you give government powers to set policies favorable to one business or another- which is what really enables most of whatever your hangups with THE CORPORASHUNS are. I'm not sure you can be sure you didn't commit a bunch of errors. Lets get one thing clear: collectivism is using force to tell other people what's "good" for "everyone".
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
i'll say you're providing a consistently right-wing idea of responsibility, but you're not addressing the core of the argument, which is that leftists do indeed think that shareholders should be liable for the consequences of their investments. investing in exxon comes with a high level of foresight that they're going to likely be involved in both negligent and genocidal behaviour. it ought to be the shareholder's responsibility to do that research before they invest and, if they don't, they ought to be prosecuted for it when it happens. the legality is something that would swing on a shift in philosophy. i mean, you're deriving your ideas from liberal axioms, but if we were to reject those liberal axioms then other conclusions would follow. obviously, the current incentive systems aren't working very well. corporatism is not at all what you think it is. you're using a colloquial definition that aligns more properly with a type of mercantilism. corporatism came out of an idea to merge guilds with the state by creating monopolies across industries. that worked itself out in the fascist era through the creation of large trusts that were under the control of state departments. i don't have the interest to explain this much further, other than to say you're not even close to it and you need to read up on the topic if you want to converse about it. mercantilism and corporatism are not related ideas, but you seem to have confused them as equal. none of this has anything to do with my basic observation that supporting corporate personhood is viewing the corporation as a holistic entity (a collectivist idea) and that rejecting corporate personhood is viewing the corporation as a collection of individuals (a liberal idea). to extrapolate it further through analogy: if these concepts were properly understood, thatcher would have said that corporate personhood could not exist because a corporation is merely a collection of people, and all the opposition to thatcher would have gasped and said she was out to lunch about it.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
"Genocidal behaviour", prosecuting shareholders, your simplistic view of things in terms of "left" versus "right"... I can see you are a well rounded and level headed person to have a discussion with. If someone within a company really did initiate some form of genocide, it should be really easy to hold that person accountable. Even the shareholders would have a valid moral and monetary claim against them. You are fucking hyperbolic and ridiculous.
deathtokoalas
+Bushrod Rust Johnson
not at all. it's relatively common for mining companies in latin america to literally commit crimes that are banned under the rome convention, which was a convention on war crimes. mass rape. burning entire villages. i claim that investors share responsibility for these crimes by enabling them through their investment. and i'd argue that the directors of these companies should be prosecuted as war criminals.
Bushrod Rust Johnson
+deathtokoalas
This is shit that happens with easily manipulable and corrupt governments in third world shitholes that don't respect individual liberty, markets, and property rights. It doesn't matter how companies are set up. They get away with shit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)