Quote: George Kaplan @ August 4 2013, 12:22 PM BST
I'd vouch for them as authentic and independent.
Having seen them perform a couple of times, they have amazing energy on stage.
At the same time, you're right that they're quite advanced for their age. But speaking as a dad with two teenage kids who are also already quite advanced musicians for their age, you'd be amazed at how good some of these young bands can be, and how early they start. My daughter started playing drums at seven. There's also really good tuition available and group classes, so kids can form bands much more easily.
Probably, like you, part of me isn't totally sure all that's necessarily a good thing, and yearns for a more organic and slapdash approach. In some ways it's like Football now with all their youth academies, compared to George Best, as a kid, kicking a ball around on the streets of Belfast.
At the same time it's great watching these young musicians flourish and grow, and produce some amazing music. And they can be fiercely independent. They definitely don't like to be told what to do, or moulded.
Going back to Rizzle Kicks, they're in a strange position. They're basically a pop group, who appeal to very young kids, but actually some of their material transcends that and could appeal to an older crowd. (Not won over yet by the new song as being one of their better things.) So which way do they go next?
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. The most important point is that your children are doing well. Best wishes to them. On Rizzle Kids, I agree that the new song is not a step forward. Where next? They no doubt have the potential for acting. I would say that it is their presentation that convinces me mostly.
I won't do your comments full justice in just a few sentences. Our generations tend to emphasise lighter parenting - ie in influence - knowing what the earlier Establishment could feel like. But there would have been no punk politics, or indeed punk culture, without that Establishment. The art was a reaction, albeit manipulated by savvy mavericks like McLaren. Earlier, swathes of 60s music from Joan Baez to the Doors would have been a shadow of themselves without wars to battle. One thing usually depends on another.
I have big doubts about our generations and can be very critical of them. The natural leaders permitted themselves to be oppositional in youth and then decided to turn everything into money. They also lack grit on account of never having experienced true hardship. Consequently, the independence of youth that is rightly encouraged in the family home is, in truth, heavily controlled systemically via overt commercialism. To be able to revive what is truly organic, you would have to take families into a remote community now. It couldn't have links with standard education, media, internet etc, all of which can be a colourless blanket.
While I have mentioned politics, my concern is not about the absence of political comment per se. To some extent, politics has always been in its own domain. Just like The Jam did, Rizzle Kicks, Ghostpoet and many others can spin a reasonably meaningful lyric. It's not musical ability per se either as that is shown by many in this era as in any other. But only in the dynamic of true rebellion can creativity really thrive. In fact, it tends to be a great diversion away from actual aggression. By contrast, when pounds and dollars are so authoritative, I don't think it helps originality. There is also considerably less evolution. That's a pity.
Another part of it is the disconnection with far longer-term history. For example, the rock guys of the very early 1960s were interested in old blues. I don't think that many expected to make a career of it or even a mint in just two years. Had they done so, it would all have been different. These themes apply to a lot of spheres. They certainly also apply to comedy. That is why this forum is fulfilling a purpose. The vista needs to be far broader than the here and now or what is taught efficiently by those who only breathe in markets.
