Found on the InterWeb:
Rock vs Suck
Scene: The near future. A reincarnated Plato and Aristotle face off in the winner-takes-all philosophical rematch of the century. A crowd of pseudo-intellectuals surround these great thinkers as they perform complicated mental warm-ups. Finally a gong is sounded and the men move face to face, two of the most influential Western minds within inches of each other.
A sign suddenly illuminates in neon brilliance the word 'Pluralism' in giant ten-foot letters. Aristotle casually gestures for Plato to go first. Plato bows and starts to speak.
"It sucks."
Silence. Plato looks slightly disturbed, whilst Aristotle sneers and replies,
"It rocks."
"It sucks."
"It rocks."
Aristotle is looking down at his traitorous mouth with mounting horror. Plato sets his face in one of complete concentration and speaks slowly.
"It," a bead of sweat meanders down the great man's forehead, "sucks."
The two philosophers look at each other, then at the sign, then back at the crowd and finally back to each other. There's a moment of complete silence. Then Plato slices open his wrists with Occam's razor and Aristotle wanders off for a vodka and Coke (with a twist of hemlock, natch).
But anyway.
My friends, the 70s' most esteemed music critic was Nick Kent, an overtly narcissistic yet unbelievably fine writer. The 90s' most famous music critics are Beavis and Butthead. Who are not. Something's clearly wrong in the state of Denmark. Or something.
So we come to 'to Suck' and 'to Rock,' the two verbs which stand across youth's intellectual culture like a pair of particularly demented guard dogs.
Suck dribbles hatred down upon the earth, for 'to suck' is the worst thing in the world. 'To suck' is to be a damned thing, cast into a void of loathing where there shall be a great gnashing of teeth.
But 'to rock,' my friends! 'To rock' is the finest thing imaginable! To rock is as good as if a horde of ancient goddesses descended upon your form and performed delicate (yet vigorous) fellatio upon your now divine penis. (Improvise your own metaphor if you're of the xx persuasion: I'm having far to much fun with this one.) To rock is very good indeed, and to suck is not nice at all.
And what's wrong with that?
Well, virtually everything, you dribbling buffoon. Why do you think I'm wasting my time typing all this out, eh? You think I've got such a sad and empty life that I just type junk for the fun of it. You calling my pint a puff, like? Outside now, mother****er. OUTSIDE!
Anyway, for a start it's extremely rare that these two phrases are a start. They're usually a completion. They're like getting to a bus-stop, and deciding that you're where you actually want to be. Once 'suck' or 'rock' pass your earthen lips far too many people believe there's no further need for elaboration. They think that they've said all there is to say, which is clearly a bit off. There is no life beyond 'suck' or 'rock.' They are an eternal terminal. You've missed the last train and you're stuck at a mental rail-station miles away from your hot cocoa. And you don't really want that, after all.
The second biggie is the meta-meaning behind the words. 'To suck' does not mean 'It is not good.' It means 'I think this is not good, therefore will ridicule it mercilessly and refuse to open my mind for a second to its possible virtues.' Of course people actually forget this, so sink into cheerful partisan zealotry. Which is equally questionable.
The third problem is its generality and Aristotelian dichotomy: A or not A. It's arguable whether we can actually apply these concepts to science, but to the arts?
(Interestingly one of Aristotle's original example of an A or not A statement was "The sky is blue." Obviously Ari had never seen a sunset. Obviously our mate Ari was a dribbling buffoon, but I feel that's an argument for another time.)
According to the MTV Suck/Rock rules all of the following fall into the same Rock category: Henry Rollins. Nirvana. Pearl Jam. Soundgarden. Stone Temple Pilots. Bush. And clearly there's a huge difference in quality between these beat combos. Anyone who places Nirvana in the same box as Bush has obviously had the CIA sneak into their bedroom late at night, chloroform them and cut out their (Good) Taste buds.
But to say X sucks more than Y would be against the rules, and we wouldn't really want to show any disobedience, eh? It sucks. It rules. No compromise.
So what does all that create then? (Apart for a market where people want to buy Offspring records.) A generation who according to their flimsiest, most random whim, arbitrarily classify things into two widely foggy mental boxes and feel no need to investigate those ideas further than the initial emotional response. We have created and cheerfully participate in a system that propagates two-party politics. We have a system which moulds bigots out of minds. We have a system that creates an Intellectual prison which makes 1984 look like being sent upstairs by your mum for half an hour, and If I didn't think conspiracies were so silly I would suggest that this whole mentality was created by the government to pacify and channel any of youth's rebellious emotions into shallow strutting and monochromic morality.
If all thought is based on sex, then our generation's is not a furiously engorged nob. It's a limp, flaccid, useless, infinitely Impotent dick at best, and a castrated mutilation at worst.
And that truly sucks.
Rock vs Suck
Scene: The near future. A reincarnated Plato and Aristotle face off in the winner-takes-all philosophical rematch of the century. A crowd of pseudo-intellectuals surround these great thinkers as they perform complicated mental warm-ups. Finally a gong is sounded and the men move face to face, two of the most influential Western minds within inches of each other.
A sign suddenly illuminates in neon brilliance the word 'Pluralism' in giant ten-foot letters. Aristotle casually gestures for Plato to go first. Plato bows and starts to speak.
"It sucks."
Silence. Plato looks slightly disturbed, whilst Aristotle sneers and replies,
"It rocks."
"It sucks."
"It rocks."
Aristotle is looking down at his traitorous mouth with mounting horror. Plato sets his face in one of complete concentration and speaks slowly.
"It," a bead of sweat meanders down the great man's forehead, "sucks."
The two philosophers look at each other, then at the sign, then back at the crowd and finally back to each other. There's a moment of complete silence. Then Plato slices open his wrists with Occam's razor and Aristotle wanders off for a vodka and Coke (with a twist of hemlock, natch).
But anyway.
My friends, the 70s' most esteemed music critic was Nick Kent, an overtly narcissistic yet unbelievably fine writer. The 90s' most famous music critics are Beavis and Butthead. Who are not. Something's clearly wrong in the state of Denmark. Or something.
So we come to 'to Suck' and 'to Rock,' the two verbs which stand across youth's intellectual culture like a pair of particularly demented guard dogs.
Suck dribbles hatred down upon the earth, for 'to suck' is the worst thing in the world. 'To suck' is to be a damned thing, cast into a void of loathing where there shall be a great gnashing of teeth.
But 'to rock,' my friends! 'To rock' is the finest thing imaginable! To rock is as good as if a horde of ancient goddesses descended upon your form and performed delicate (yet vigorous) fellatio upon your now divine penis. (Improvise your own metaphor if you're of the xx persuasion: I'm having far to much fun with this one.) To rock is very good indeed, and to suck is not nice at all.
And what's wrong with that?
Well, virtually everything, you dribbling buffoon. Why do you think I'm wasting my time typing all this out, eh? You think I've got such a sad and empty life that I just type junk for the fun of it. You calling my pint a puff, like? Outside now, mother****er. OUTSIDE!
Anyway, for a start it's extremely rare that these two phrases are a start. They're usually a completion. They're like getting to a bus-stop, and deciding that you're where you actually want to be. Once 'suck' or 'rock' pass your earthen lips far too many people believe there's no further need for elaboration. They think that they've said all there is to say, which is clearly a bit off. There is no life beyond 'suck' or 'rock.' They are an eternal terminal. You've missed the last train and you're stuck at a mental rail-station miles away from your hot cocoa. And you don't really want that, after all.
The second biggie is the meta-meaning behind the words. 'To suck' does not mean 'It is not good.' It means 'I think this is not good, therefore will ridicule it mercilessly and refuse to open my mind for a second to its possible virtues.' Of course people actually forget this, so sink into cheerful partisan zealotry. Which is equally questionable.
The third problem is its generality and Aristotelian dichotomy: A or not A. It's arguable whether we can actually apply these concepts to science, but to the arts?
(Interestingly one of Aristotle's original example of an A or not A statement was "The sky is blue." Obviously Ari had never seen a sunset. Obviously our mate Ari was a dribbling buffoon, but I feel that's an argument for another time.)
According to the MTV Suck/Rock rules all of the following fall into the same Rock category: Henry Rollins. Nirvana. Pearl Jam. Soundgarden. Stone Temple Pilots. Bush. And clearly there's a huge difference in quality between these beat combos. Anyone who places Nirvana in the same box as Bush has obviously had the CIA sneak into their bedroom late at night, chloroform them and cut out their (Good) Taste buds.
But to say X sucks more than Y would be against the rules, and we wouldn't really want to show any disobedience, eh? It sucks. It rules. No compromise.
So what does all that create then? (Apart for a market where people want to buy Offspring records.) A generation who according to their flimsiest, most random whim, arbitrarily classify things into two widely foggy mental boxes and feel no need to investigate those ideas further than the initial emotional response. We have created and cheerfully participate in a system that propagates two-party politics. We have a system which moulds bigots out of minds. We have a system that creates an Intellectual prison which makes 1984 look like being sent upstairs by your mum for half an hour, and If I didn't think conspiracies were so silly I would suggest that this whole mentality was created by the government to pacify and channel any of youth's rebellious emotions into shallow strutting and monochromic morality.
If all thought is based on sex, then our generation's is not a furiously engorged nob. It's a limp, flaccid, useless, infinitely Impotent dick at best, and a castrated mutilation at worst.
And that truly sucks.
