This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
In the late 90s and early 2000s I had friends, a brother and sister, whose dad worked some kind of sales job where he had access to free concert tickets. This is back when purchasing agents weren't prohibited from accepting gifts from vendors, and his company would buy tickets in bulk and occasionally get promotional ones thrown at them for free. While most of these were intended for customers, there were always shows with limited demand that he couldn't give away, so he would get his extended family together and they'd invite a bunch of friends and a huge group of us would go to these concerts for free. But there was one high demand show that he had a ton of tickets to that I went to, because it those demanding the tickets weren't the same as his customer base, and everyone in the group was really into music and had wide-ranging taste and would see anything remotely interesting if it was free.
I bring this up because you talked about how the Rior Grrrl trend was pretty much dead by 1999, and I think the concert I went to contributed to its demise and helps explain why girls of that disposition may have gravitated towards Woodstock '99 type music. For those who aren't familiar, Riot Grrrl was a short-lived movement that had greater purchase among critics than the general public, a situation which makes it seem more important in retrospect than it was at the time. The basic impetus was that there's a lot of loud, aggressive rock music made by men, but when women act like that it's taboo. The bands, whose style was derived from punk, made a political statement out of breaking that taboo. The lyrical themes were overtly feminist and intentionally controversial. However, describing them as "intentionally asexual angry-dyke-elastic-waistband-whine" is rather myopic.
This was certainly the popular perception, such that one existed, but it was not the reality. Calling them intentionally asexual is an odd position to take for a genre with song titles like "I Like Fucking", and when "Rebel Girl" by Bikini Kill, progenitors of the genre, has overt lesbian themes. This was at a time when the best known lesbian musician was Melissa Ethridge, was a conventional rock and roller who sang about love and loss but always in gender nonspecific terms. The idea that their style was dykey has been overblown in retrospect; they mostly just looked normal. And while they sang about lesbian themes, they were more "queer" in the contemporary sense. Musically speaking, it's not without interest but was very much of its time.
By the late 90s it was already dying. As I said, it had certain cultural cachet, but the fundamental problem of trying to turn music into politics is that when the music is part of the message itself, it will necessarily lack mainstream appeal, since there are no political implications in doing what everyone else is doing. So by saying that it was okay for girls to make aggressive music, there music had to actually be aggressive, too aggressive to have any appeal beyond college campuses and the independent scene. Now, there had already been some successful musicians who had made politics part of their work, most notably John Lennon, but it had always seemed like a sideshow. Lennon's most overtly political record, Some Time in New York City, is almost universally regarded as his worst record, and the agit-prop sing-a-longs were quickly, and wisely replaced with more conventional material on the follow up, Mind Games. The real danger to the Riot Grrrls was that a mainstream musician would make a credible claim to their political mantle.
In 1996, Candaian singer-songwriter Sara McLachlan noticed that concert promoters were reluctant to put two female acts on the same bill. The following year, at the peak of her career, she was able to organize a touring show that would feature an all-star lineup of female musicians. The tour, Lilith Fair, was a huge success, ran for three years, was flogged relentlessly on VH1, and was not shy about being overtly political. The problem with Lilith Fair was that whatever cultural cachet the Riot Grrrls had had been coopted by people who could sell more records. It's hard to evangelize Sleater-Kinney for political reasons when one can get the same sense of empowerment from Sheryl Crow. There was nothing particularly political about any of the artists who toured with Lilith Fair, and the political message was a milquetoast "women can make music as well as men" rather than the more controversial feminism of the riot grrrls.
If you haven't figured it out by now, Lilith Fair was the concert I attended with my friends, in the 1998 installment. If you were a college girl looking to get her freak on and indulge in feminist politics, it probably wasn't the place for you. It probably had more actual lesbians than a riot grrrl show (the Indigo Girls were there), but there were also a lot of families, older people, and yuppie couples. But to the extent that it had a political purpose it was more successful than the riot grrls could ever be, because it appealed to everyone. The 1999 installment had McLachlan, Crow, The Dixie Chicks, and Queen Latifah. Those are four very different styles with very different audiences, but it didn't matter because the kind of people who were likely to attend Lilith Fair weren't the kind of people who made musical taste a part of their identity. And the political message stuck, as it showed that a tour filled with women could make a ton of money, even without any stylistic coherence. And while the artists involved were mainstream, they were also credible; no one doubted that they would sell a ton of tickets with Celine Dion and the Spice Girls on the bill; they had to have people who relatively sophisticated listeners could like unironically.
But Lilith Fair wasn't cool. A 35-year-old systems analyst with 1000 CDs in his collection of all genres may have bought Surfacing after hearing "Adia" on the radio and agreed that it was a good album, but the kind of college girls who listened to it were the ones who majored in English and didn't party. The Lilith Fair acts were credible, but only to adults; they certainly weren't something that was going to get you anywhere in high school. It also didn't help that 1999 wasn't exactly the most divisive time politically. Bill Clinton had a massive approval rating despite having recently been impeached, nobody was excited about the 2000 election, and 9/11 hadn't happened yet. Most young people were apolitical. Lilith Fair was overtly political, yet I don't remember any particular criticism or disagreement.
So whatever else you want to say about the riot grrrls, they had a certain youth appeal that Lilith Fair couldn't replicate. The other thing about them is that they operated on the same wavelength as grunge in the early to mid 90s. While grunge had become fully mainstream by the middle of the decade, there was still a certain punk energy it retained, a certain leftist political lean, a certain don't-give-a-fuck slacker ethos. This is why the forgotten Woodstock 94' never received the same amount of attention as the '99 edition, even though it, too, was popularly considered a logistical failure at the time. Nu-metal had a certain dark rage to it that neither grunge nor riot grrrl had; even if the latter was consciously trying to be aggressive, it couldn't escape the arty subtext that came with the territory of being an indie band in the 90s. By the end of the decade, rock and roll, which had largely established its reputation on the basis of shocking your parents, had reached a terminal state of heaviness. Music can only get so aggressive; it had to end somewhere, and it's no surprise that rock would mellow out in the decades to follow. So what you end up with is people playing really aggressive music with no political subtext to appeal to, that only appeals to a college crowd and has little credibility among adult critics. Then put them in an abandoned air force base with 300,000 kids who are of prime partying age in horrible conditions, and tell them to start breaking things. The violence at Woodstock '99 may have not been inevitable, but it definitely wasn't surprising.
More options
Context Copy link