Rock N Roll is Dead (And We Like It) Part II:

Though there may only be two people out there reading this, it has come to my attention I have been unfair toward the Country Music community. I was accused of deliberately jabbing Country Music and straying away from the point of the Blog: Rock N Roll is Dead. In all honesty, of course I took a cheap shot; folks, that's what blogs are for, Blogs let you say what you normally wouldn't say aloud to anyone you know. I wouldn't necessarily say that Blogs are cowardice, but it is certainly a ambiguous way to feel anonymously powerful, if only for the ten minutes you write it. Furthermore, Blogs are inherently subjective. And, if we can be academic for a moment, objectivity exists only to focus and bend the refracted light of subjectivity. So, in essence, what I'm saying is that Objectivity is merely the hand-maiden of Subjectivity. (Do with that what you will)

Yes, but I suppose I have digressed from what we were talking about: Country Music. The real point the reader made was that I was inconsistent if you'll remember, "Ethnocentric, and dare I say it, full of misery and self-loathing." I then alluded this is why the Blues were created and that is was certainly more creative and soulful. I was taken to task by a reader, who happened to know my email address, and what follows is the dialogue we had back and forth. (Note: I publish this dialouge in hopes that other readers will appreciate the notion of dialogue as a means to undertstanding one another and communicate)

M: "How is it that Country is ethnocentic, when the Blues is not? Not that I like country, but just the same, it is incongruous. Otherwise the post is decent, save for the "their" instead of "they're". (Note: I have read the post several times, and still can not find that mistake. If you find the sentence please post somewhere so I can see. I'm not saying I didn't make it; I'm saying perhaps I'm reading too fast and can't see it.)

B: Country is totally ethnocentric in that it revolves mainly around a miserable, overly-patriotic sentiment of US vs. THEM. Furthermore, Country is the terrible off-shoot of Bluegrass, whereas the Blues was completely innovative and original, and, lest we forget, started the entire Rock N' Roll movement in America.

As for the grammatical error, well, there are no excuses except to say that I was writing quickly and wasn't paying attention; it was about completion of thought.

M: I am not talking about the merits of one versus the other: the blues is, hands down, a better brand of music. I am merely talking about the inconsistency. You don't have to hate all things white bread just because they're white bread in order to prove that you are open-minded. That is my point. You can be consistent and true to your thoughts as long as you are careful to say what it is you want to say without giving discerning readers (possible detractors) something so obvious to point out.

B: Ok, look. The Blues is not ethnocentric; it is merely centric. It revolves around the self and self-laments, sure, but doesn't espouse the feeling of America vs. The World. It just doesn't. The Blues was a way to feel bad but still be critical of the the system. Country doesn't do that; it tows the line every time. I don't hate country, in fact, there are some country songs you can groove to, but that's Old Country: Willie Nelson, Hank Williams. So, in essence, it's not inconsistency, it's the truth overly simplified.

M: Again, not my point. The point is to present your core issue. That issue is that pop-music is crap. Throwing in the off-hand comment was unnecessary and detracted from your point. That is all I am saying.

I agree with your point of view, by the way.

And, that's where we left it. I felt it was important to share here because those who felt critical of the statement may now have better insight into my thought process, and, by the grace of God, would allow us to understand one another better. (That's probably a long shot)