3 ms·
> Lotta early-rock-history-for-newbs in there, I'll give it that. I think this is not giving the article enough credit. It's not just that people are "newbs" t
by vanderZwan 6y ago
> Lotta early-rock-history-for-newbs in there, I'll give it that.
I think this is not giving the article enough credit. It's not just that people are "newbs" to music history, it's also that real music history is buried under manufactured-consent style industry narrative, which the article explicitly points out halfway through:
> the rest is music industry history — something we need to make an discerned effort to divorce from actual music history.
By the time I write this comment, the article has received 1.8k "likes" (or whatever they are called on Medium), and has probably been read by an order of magnitude more people. It pushes back against this narrative.
The fact that you already knew this as a music superfan (or whatever the reason might be) does not reduce the article's value in this regard.
Thanks for the links though!
- 8bitsrule 6y agoDidn't mean to suggest that they didn't do a fine job with what they did write. I did feel that the title overstated Marshall Dylan's role in it. As for the 'music industry history' quote ... couldn't agree more. The industry did and does a great deal of damage to popular music since it popped up in the 1930s to decide what songs appeared on 'Your Hit Parade'. I also wanted to take this chance to promote Montgomery's overlooked film; it gets so much right with so much heart.
- vanderZwan 6y agoAh, that was the intent behind that sentence. Makes sense, thank you for clarifying. I hope you can see how I easily misunderstood it without that added context though. And for the record: it was clear either way that your comment was motivated by sincere love for music and the people who make it. Thanks again for the links, I did not know the film