Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Toilet & Bowels
yeah, but they were only talking to a very small minority of females.
i mean i guess it's obvious that most people are largely drawn to music made by people of their own gender/race etc, and maybe they were trying to get more girls to take an interest in music. but at the same time by creating a scene for themselves, which they succeded in doing, a scene that still exists today, it just wreeks volumes of lameness that a band wouldn't want to be recognized for their music, which is what any band who alines themself with riot grrl is doing now. things like ladyfest suggest that stuff isn't strong enough to survive unless they split from everything else. but then maybe it's just for girls who aren't into music made by guys.
i guess this is a circular arguement really.
anyway, i'm much more interested in female musicians who don't feel the need to separate themselves from guys, and are prepared to muck in with everyone else and be judged on the merits of their music (e.g. kim gordon) rather than something other (bikini kill).
|
Meh, I don't know. I don't see anything wrong with their logic. They made music that kind of went against the popular notion of what music made by female musicians were supposed to sound like. It was loud, vulgar, offensive. The message being be yourself, don't let society tell you how to act, what to say, or what kind of music you can make as a woman.
And I don't necessarily know that they wouldn't want to be judged by the merits of their music. Just because they're fighting for something doesn't mean they can't be legitimate musicians as well. Gil-Scott Heron for example. Or Public Enemy as you said. It's just that instead of making hip hop they're making punk rock. Which by it's very nature is a bunch of racket played by pissed off folks.