Yeah, I'm glad that rape rates are lower. How could I not be? Aren't you? That still doesn't mean that they are low. Or that rape camps no longer exist. Rape is still a mass phenomenon. I'll continue to talk and care about it.

Quit blowing your vag juice everywhere you should be pregnant by now anyway

yeah, but aren't you also from an ultra-privileged background?

THANK YOU! I was also trying to articulate this point. Lots of the girls who these camps cater towards don't have music programs in their schools. Their parents can't afford to buy them instruments or give them instructions. Some of the girls who my partner coached in the camp almost cried when she mentioned that their grandparents might have to pay $10 to get into the show....

You just got repped!

i think girls rock sounds like a good idea, i don't know why everyone else is being such a dick about it. as if no musicians they like ever took lessons or even studied their instrument to an advanced level, because if taking no lessons was the best way for lydia lunch to learn to play then it's the best way for everyone.... especially if they don't want to sound like no wave. although obviously most 9 year olds want to start a teenage jesus & the jerks cover band.
seriously the people who are against this camp are coming up with the dumbest arguments and then posting links to courntney love as if that proves something.... it's kind of embarrasing to read.

That's the one thing I thought was good about it. I think it's really important to give people that don't have much money a chance.


After all the bullshit I'm pretty embarrassed to still say it, but what I was trying to say is, there's nothing wrong with getting lessons, I just don't think you can get lessons on how to be original and how to be yourself and if you need them, you'll never learn it. But ... fuck it

yeah, you can't teach people how to be original but the people who do have their own ideas will be better equipped to execute those ideas if they've learned some skills, i mean listen to Can or Kraftwerk, those bands were both made up of music students, but neither band really sounds much like anything that came before them and if both groups hadn't had that background there's no way they could have pulled off what they did. Infact pretty much all krautrock bands had amazing chops and i'm willing to bet that most if not all of them took lessons to a notable degree.

this is complete deluded bullshit

NO.

ok, firstly this thread is discussing children circa 9 years old, how many of them are even aware of pitchfork, let alone stuff that is beyond it?
secondly, if women have always played an integral part in performing rock music (as your statement implies) then please name 100 female musicians (you don't even have to like them, just name them) to put out a rock n roll record between 1955 and 1975, and please tell me what instrument they played on that record?
and thirdly, please tell me of which areas of rock music today does the male to female ratio between performers match those of the audience?

here's 20 off the top of my not taking you seriously, research your own criteria

Catherine Ribeiro
Briggite Fontaine
Mama Bea Tekielski
Wanda Jackson
Janis Martin
Siouxsie's debut misses your arbitrary parameters by three years
Nico
Dara Puspita
The Pearl Sisters
Delta 5
The Ronnettes
The Crystals
The Shangri-Las
Little Peggy March
The Shirelles
NINA SIMONE WAS PRETTY FUCKING PUNK
Rosa Yemen
Niagara of Destroy All Monsters
Suburban Lawns were ahead of the game
Teenage Jesus & the Jerks
Pierrot Lunaire

Hey, you forgot the Runaways...

Of course it doesn't mean that. I never implied such a statement either. That doesn't make up for the fact it still being a good thing to offer lessons to somebody who might not be able to afford it. Socio-economic class doesn't automatically imply that somebody has less resources, it just means that there may be a higher probability.


And about women in rock - yes, there are a lot of women in rock. However, they are still very much overshadowed by men. And, as I've stated before, most women in rock are either back up musicians or pure sex objects. This is about providing an alternative...albeit a week long alternative.

my parameters weren't arbitrary, the point i'm making is that prior to punk (i.e. 1976, and the first time their was any kind of direct challenge to the male domination of rock n roll) to see a woman playing an instrument in a band was very rare, it is still not the case that the number of women playing in rock bands is in equal proportion to the number of women who make up the audience of rock music.
i don't need to research this, but you clearly do as firstly a good deal of the bands you mentioned are post '76, secondly a good deal of them aren't rock n roll (and please explain what nina simone has to do with punk?), and the majority that remain are singers, i.e. what was then considered the only acceptable place for a woman in a band, i.e. the men were in charge of everything else.
and lastly, most of those are so obscure that they are irrelevant to anyone but internet nerds and serious record collectors, oh, and 9 year olds going to summer camp.

please, follow through and make the point that kids from poor backgrounds have the same opportunities in life as those from wealthy families.

What's Nina Simone got to do with punk? How would I know, I'm just talking shit. "Obscure" bands are relevant to anyone who listens to their diluted influence in "popular" bands.

But I concede the argument. The spirit and themes of rock are very relevant to underprivileged 9 year olds. I remember hearing Courtney Love when I was a 9 year old girl, I remember thinking "what's my vagina for?"