Join 3,433 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


THE DEATH OF ROCK AND ROLL VIA WEB 2.0
November 10, 2006 11:51 AM   Subscribe

It's official. The raw evil of AOL has joined forces with the unbridled hubris of Web 2.0 and killed Rock and Roll. I blame BoingBoing.
posted by loquacious (48 comments total)

 
That was pretty sad.
I hope he picked up a fat check.
posted by 2sheets at 11:59 AM on November 10, 2006


*cries*

on the other hand:

I am a pilgrim looking for danger
I am an outlaw, I am a stranger
I'm just a clown walking down the street
I think Lou Reed is a creep
I need a girl I need release...


I drink Coca cola for breakfast
I've got Jackie Onassis in my pants
I'm never gonna watch channel 13
Edjumacation ain't for me
I'm so drunk I can barely see
posted by jonmc at 12:00 PM on November 10, 2006


read this on Idolator yesterday. AOL is really a horrible soulless coproration, the way they held that gun to his head and made him accept that huge check to play their party.

I'll also copy and paste my snarky comment from over there:

TO: Reed, Lou
SUBJECT: sexually and racially harassing language in the workplace

Dear Mr. Reed:

In the future, please consider making more work-appropriate word choices, e.g. "the women of African descent go do da do da do da do dad do...."

Further violations will result in disciplinary action up to, and including, termination.

Corporate HR

posted by drjimmy11 at 12:10 PM on November 10, 2006


she also never became mentally ill, even when she was applying oral pleasure.
posted by jonmc at 12:11 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


I got to see something similar at the recent Oracle customer and partner appreciation party. They got Elton John, Berlin, Devo and Joan Jett to play sets, along with some other local acts. Now, I don't think that Devo ever had any illusions about not being in it for the money, but it was pretty fucking weird to see a sea of suits grooving to Joan Jett and the Blackhearts was... surreal.

She fucking rocked, by the way.
posted by lekvar at 12:22 PM on November 10, 2006


I hope he picked up a fat check.
and
the way they held that gun to his head and made him accept that huge check to play their party.


I don't know if he got paid at all, or handsomely, or not, but apparently his "kung fu brother" is friends with someone at AOL or is someone at AOL or something.

“Who would have thought it would come to this. I’d be playing at a cyberspace conference, brought here by AOL, introduced by my kung-fu brother.”

Also, I expected a post in this thread from jonmc in the first comment. Though he failed, he only missed it by one minute, and thus I am not disappointed. Though I was expecting more of a "Rock is dead? Fuck you!!" response, but I do believe he has been mellowed by domesticity.
posted by loquacious at 12:23 PM on November 10, 2006


Rock isn't in fact dead, but it seems to be hibernating.

(and while Lou Reed is undeniably a rock genius, by all accounts he's a creep as well)
posted by jonmc at 12:28 PM on November 10, 2006


I dunno... hasn't all that was good about Lou Reed been gone for a while anyway? Set the Twilight Reeling was one of the most disheartening records I've ever heard. By the time you record something like "Sex with your Parents," you're pretty much done for good.
posted by COBRA! at 12:31 PM on November 10, 2006


His mistake was ever letting it be quiet enough for people to talk.
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:38 PM on November 10, 2006


Dear Lou: Did you even stop to think what Lester Bangs would have to say about this?
posted by sourwookie at 12:41 PM on November 10, 2006


As part of the chorus who points out the pale and pimply nakedness of the Web 2.0 Emperor, I can't say that I'm surprised.

Some of the comments spinning off of it are rich, anyone so full of themselves as to utter, something as meaningless as "Or whether they want to get down to what’s really going on in the scene - the true disruptor’s of tomorrow who are only just emerging onto the scene." need to have the hype beaten out of them with a stack of Mondo 2000.

At least the Internet techno-utopianism of the 80s and 90s had a fucking soul, willing to brush shoulders with sexual, gender, musical, transhuman, alt.religious and drug countercultures. The visions of cyberspace from that time not only were inherently collaborative, but grounded on an ideal of mutable and chimeric identity based on the expression of ideas rather than traditional gender, race and class. The Web 2.0 people seem primarily content to serve up mechanisms for collecting the detrius of geeks, for other geeks.

After you've battered the mistaken messiah complex out of the skull of these guys (or at the very least, render them incapable of continuing to repeat the costly and well-documented mistakes of their betters), perhaps then you can move on to force-feeding them some basic theory. At this point, drastic measures may be required. I recommend aversion shock therapy every time they uncritically try to namedrop Kurzweil or Dawkins. Start them off gently with some situative psychology like Suchman's thesis, then Brown and Duguid, Examine studies of online communities like Turkel and Herring. Look at some of the Social Network studies of CMC via Wellman. Bootstrap them slowly through Landauer's critical work and if they are really bright and have a clue, get into some basic pragmatism via Dewey, or socio-technical theory via Vygotski and Leontev.

Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of examples of prior art in online collaboration and learning. Many of these have been studied to death, resulting in a huge mass of theory both abstract and practical.

Then, maybe, we can have a sane and informed discussion about how to build and foster sucessful online networks beyond just, "Web 2.0, it's so different, so revolutionary, so disruptive, DUDE!"

Rock may not be dead, but the vision of the Internet as a disruptive technology almost certainly is. The failure of Web 2.0 advocates to see beyond last week is a key symptom.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:48 PM on November 10, 2006 [9 favorites]


I recommend aversion shock therapy every time they uncritically try to namedrop Kurzweil or Dawkins. Start them off gently with some situative psychology like Suchman's thesis, then Brown and Duguid, Examine studies of online communities like Turkel and Herring. Look at some of the Social Network studies of CMC via Wellman. Bootstrap them slowly through Landauer's critical work and if they are really bright and have a clue, get into some basic pragmatism via Dewey, or socio-technical theory via Vygotski and Leontev.

That's 12 names dropped for those of you playing along at home. (only one of which I recognize).
posted by jonmc at 12:50 PM on November 10, 2006


AOL killed Rock & Roll? (poor rabbit)
posted by mrzer0 at 12:53 PM on November 10, 2006


eh. what's the *real* difference between this and any other "rock concert" or even selling albums, i.e. why is this audience any worse than any other? interest?
posted by mrgrimm at 1:02 PM on November 10, 2006


Last time I saw Lou his Tai Chi master was on the stage half the set.

I dont' think AOL were involved.
posted by brighton at 1:07 PM on November 10, 2006


Seems to be Lou Reed burned out the moment he sobered up. Nowadays playing music is just a regular old job for him.
posted by wigu at 1:07 PM on November 10, 2006


I dunno, grimm, it's just a little weird seeing a guy who used to sing about how smack made him feel like Jesus' Son singing to promote a faux-wholesome, technologically backward megacorp.
posted by jonmc at 1:07 PM on November 10, 2006


I don't personally know if Lou Reed is a creep or not, but I can tell you this:

His breath smells like six miles of shit.



I love the VU
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:16 PM on November 10, 2006


KirkJobSluder: I'm favoriting that comment as hard as I can. We're totally going to have hot, stinky, wetware enabled, primative primate monkey sex.

And then we're going to found a startup. Based on scalable, ubiquitous, extensibly disruptive, distributed, peer to peer, hot wetware monkey sex. We'll call it Monkey 2.0.

After the first round of VC funding we'll hire R.U Sirius, Xeni Jardin, Lydia Lunch and Hakim Bey to invent innovative forms of monkey sex, which will be performed and tested on desks and office furniture made entirely out of rare back issues of Mondo2000, Phrack, Blacklisted411 and 2600.

What's that I hear from the peanut gallery? There's no market for hotly wared extensible wet monkey sex? You short-sighted rubes. We'll make a market for ubiquitous, pervasive monkey sex - via extensible disruption, which of course will grant us wet, stinky opportunities.
posted by loquacious at 1:16 PM on November 10, 2006 [2 favorites]


jonmc: I dunno, grimm, it's just a little weird seeing a guy who used to sing about how smack made him feel like Jesus' Son singing to promote a faux-wholesome, technologically backward megacorp.

The interesting bit about this is the cultural disconnect involved. You have a guy who made his fame singing about smack and genderfuck, singing for a group of business-folk who never really listened to him, and a group of geeks that can't see backwards past the latest web services framework.

loquacious: hehehe. You owe me a keyboard.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:19 PM on November 10, 2006


"I dunno, grimm, it's just a little weird seeing a guy who used to sing about how smack made him feel like Jesus' Son singing to promote a faux-wholesome, technologically backward megacorp." Is it? Lou Reed is an old man. He's older than Woody Herman or Benny Goodman were when Woodstock took place. He plays old people's music, which is appropriate for big corporate gatherings.
posted by QuietDesperation at 1:23 PM on November 10, 2006


You have a guy who made his fame singing about smack and genderfuck, singing for a group of business-folk who never really listened to him, and a group of geeks that can't see backwards past the latest web services framework.

Well, you never know. If where I work is any indication there's plenty of high-up WebTypes into both*. And Lou Reed's two best songs were about a girl and about a radio (and the second was covered by Mitch Ryder, who Lou admits, did it better than he did).

*no, not in a good way
posted by jonmc at 1:23 PM on November 10, 2006


Won't someone please think of the monkeys?
posted by nebulawindphone at 1:25 PM on November 10, 2006


*Thinks of monkeys*



*Wonders what Monkey 2.0's nasdaq ticker symbol will be*
posted by elwoodwiles at 1:30 PM on November 10, 2006


a banana. or a flying monkey turd.
posted by jonmc at 1:32 PM on November 10, 2006


"He plays old people's music..."

Absurd statement. Yes, Lou Reed is getting old, but he's an artist who still cares about artistic expression, as opposed to simply going through the motions as a performer. He still tries, a opposed to lazy sellouts like Rod "Great American Songbook" Stewart.
posted by davebush at 1:46 PM on November 10, 2006


At this point, drastic measures may be required. I recommend aversion shock therapy every time they uncritically try to namedrop Kurzweil or Dawkins...

Isn't this pretty much the same speech Matt Damon used to pick up Minnie Driver in Good Will Hunting?
posted by Optamystic at 2:26 PM on November 10, 2006


Huh, I was hoping for Metal Machine Music.
posted by Tube at 3:03 PM on November 10, 2006


You know what's sad? I really can't tell if loquacious is kidding.
posted by quite unimportant at 3:42 PM on November 10, 2006


KirkJobSluder: Rock may not be dead, but the vision of the Internet as a disruptive technology almost certainly is. The failure of Web 2.0 advocates to see beyond last week is a key symptom.

I'm assuming you mean that the web 2.0 vision of net as disruptive hoo-hah is dead (rather than the vision of people who thought web 2.0 was a crock before it got started), but I fear it has just started to take hold.

While it may be just another irrelevant lame meme for the interweb in-crowd, I'm starting to see it more and more in the mainstream press (I remember being tickled the first time I saw 'web 2.0' in non-tech press a couple months ago).

Though web 2.0 is clearly a nebulous, uncritical, bullshit marketing term to many net folk, it's message does have some relevance to much of the non-webified world. After the crash I think many people decided the internet was simply a way to get good deals, chat, and find out about stuff (rather than the exciting beginnings of a new networked world). The web 2.0 message, loathe as I am to admit it, is actually kind of relevant to such people. Though sorely lacking in substance, the term gets across the very simple idea that there is more to the web than you thought, that the web is evolving and growing beyond your expectations and basically that the web is pretty damn cool after all, and that there's funky new shit on the horizon. All of which seems like a useful thing to communicate, even if it must be communicated so clumsily, and may not be much more than a way to make some dude some dough.

Simple version of the point I'm trying to make: the web's stock in the public imagination is (was, moreso) undervalued, O'Reilly noticed this, noticed an upward trend, and has pitched himself somewhere near the crest of a wave, and has done so in a manner that is broadly useful to improving understanding of our web future.

Of course, sooner or later there'll be more overpriced acquisitions & pointless investments and the whole thing will deflate again, but that's just business.
posted by MetaMonkey at 5:09 PM on November 10, 2006


"That was pretty sad.
I hope he picked up a fat check."


I thought that said fat chick.

Also, I do not like Lou Reed or his music, and I wouldn't consider either rock and roll. Punk != rock.

Now get the fuck off my lawn.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:17 PM on November 10, 2006


I think this just confirms the fact that Lou Reed has always sucked. The sooner you fucking hispter jackasses stop sucking the cock of The Velvet Underground (2 good songs, if that, does not musical geniuses make) the better off we'll all be.

The Shaggs made better music.
posted by cerulgalactus at 5:21 PM on November 10, 2006


mr_crash_davis: Or what? You'll release the dogs, or the bees, or the dogs with bees in their mouths, so that when they bark at you they sting you too?
posted by cerulgalactus at 5:38 PM on November 10, 2006


KirkJobSluder: Start them off gently with some situative psychology like Suchman's thesis, then Brown and Duguid, Examine studies of online communities like Turkel and Herring. Look at some of the Social Network studies of CMC via Wellman. Bootstrap them slowly through Landauer's critical work and if they are really bright and have a clue, get into some basic pragmatism via Dewey, or socio-technical theory via Vygotski and Leontev.


This is a great litany of scholarship. However it suffers from a glaring deficiency insofar as it fails to mention the seminal work of Dr. Yngwie Malmsteen, whose application of transgressive neoclassical modes to socio-techincal theory still stands, I believe, mostly unchallenged.
posted by psmith at 6:43 PM on November 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


Sick Boy: It's certainly a phenomenon in all walks of life.

Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: What do you mean?

Sick Boy: Well, at one time, you've got it, and then you lose it, and it's gone forever. All walks of life: George Best, for example. Had it, lost it. Or David Bowie, or Lou Reed...

Mark "Rent-boy" Renton: Some of his solo stuff's not bad.

Sick Boy: No, it's not bad, but it's not great either. And in your heart you kind of know that although it sounds all right, it's actually just shite.
posted by basicchannel at 6:45 PM on November 10, 2006


it's just a little weird seeing a guy who used to sing about how smack made him feel like Jesus' Son singing to promote a faux-wholesome, technologically backward megacorp.

So. Twenty years ago Reed perched his fat ass on a scooter for Honda. What's the diff?

I don't mind Reed, but I hate Rock 'n Roll Puritans.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:58 PM on November 10, 2006


Hey everybody some hostile weirdo on the internet called me a hipster jackass for liking the velvet underground? So what now... pills or jump off a building?
posted by Divine_Wino at 8:05 PM on November 10, 2006


Ship yourself to him, parcel post, special delivery.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 9:23 PM on November 10, 2006


Maybe I'm showing how out-of-touch I am here, but do people really say "two dot oh"?
posted by alexei at 10:33 PM on November 10, 2006


I just assumed he'd needed money really badly. Who knows why.

On the other hand, I imagine Andy would've been happy to make some paintings for them -- for the right price, and especially if he didn't need the money.
posted by treepour at 10:36 PM on November 10, 2006


Lou Reed sucks.

Back in 1972 or so, I was working at the Liverpool Stadium. Reed was headlining, and the New York Dolls were the second on the bill.

Reed refused to play if the promotor -- the wonderful Roger Eagle -- allowed the Dolls to go on before him. Clearly he was scared of being blown off the stage.

We were treated to half an hour of the Dolls being played through a $20 cassette recorder. Followed by Reed playing a Velvet Underground's Greatest Hits set.

As the compere said, the man is famous for opening hearts and minds.

Bwahahahaha.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 2:18 AM on November 11, 2006


Dude calls somebody a hipster jackass and then namechecks the Shaggs? Freud called it projection, my man.
posted by jonmc at 5:29 AM on November 11, 2006 [1 favorite]


yeah i laughed at that too.
posted by dydecker at 6:57 AM on November 11, 2006


I do not like Lou Reed or his music, and I wouldn't consider either rock and roll.

crash, i'd marry you in a new york minute. but only if you were a tranny whore who sucked cock for smack.
posted by quonsar at 8:48 AM on November 11, 2006


I don't mind Reed, but I hate Rock 'n Roll Puritans.
thank you octobersurprise, I can't believe you're the only one shouting "big deal" here.

This just in - Musician plays music in front of people for money!
posted by hellbient at 1:47 PM on November 11, 2006


Freud called it projection, I calls it "Both artists suck and are namechecked by hipster jackasses, but one knew they were shite, the other is Lou Reed".
posted by cerulgalactus at 4:31 PM on November 11, 2006


And, Im not really that hostile. Weird, yeah - I'll give you that one, but not hostile.
posted by cerulgalactus at 4:33 PM on November 11, 2006


I sorta recall in an interview in (I think) Rolling Stone in the late '70s Mick Jagger expressed a desire to retire before he got old, something about not wanting to be singing "I can't get no satisfaction" when he's 40. I thought then, and still think, that that was a wonderful idea, one that should long ago have been compulsory across the board. Something like "at 30 rock musicians switch to Prog Rock, at 40 play the Blues, at 50 you go Country, at 60 it's instrumental Jazz (I prefer hard bop), and if you're still around when you're 70 you'd better know Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons' by heart -- for massed dulcimers."

An exception would be made for those rare talents like Tom Waits, who, Mearth-like, age backwards. Lou Reed does not fit this category, full diaper notwithstanding.
posted by davy at 9:28 PM on November 12, 2006


« Older Fireballs...  |  MSNBC soft pedalled the story... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments