“Rock and Roll music is not just another genre. It has become an intensified concentration of vulgarity and ego, with enough brilliance in the muscianship and cleverness in the lyrics to trick me into listening. It’s simply not what I’m living for.”

Does that make sense?

I did not comment to be an apologist of the super bowl. I enjoyed the two and half quarters I watched, and I excused myself or talked to a friend during most of the commercials (I watched the Tebow ads, and those E-trade babies make me laugh). I actually share his conviction about the carnality of the advertising content. So even though I don’t think I could confuse football for “something I am living for” I do understand the trajectory of Ray’s comment/conviction. I just wonder, and not in an indicting way, how this conclusion is arrived at, and in what way it applies to the other media/entertainment we consume? Certainly it does apply, but why this and maybe not that?

Sorry to those of you I upset. It did make me think, and my statement concerning a slippery slope was not a declaration. I followed it with questions marks to convey curiosity, and possibly spur dialogue…the very thing Matt called for and provided. However, I agree this was was a statement of personal conviction, but since it is one that he made public on his blog it seems to be more than that.

Ray has no need of me to defend him but I am going to anyway.

First, how do you know he is only applying this to the Super Bowl? He simply wrote a short paragraph in the context of a Super Bowl weekend. It was the subject at hand and was not meant to be and should not be applied as a pervasive critique of the multifaceted parts of our culture. He applied this ethic to the Super Bowl because this was his only subject. He should not cover any other subject at all for us to think deeply about what he said.

Second, if your second sentence is a statement posed as a question then I would have to ask, “Why”? What about his statement about a singular subject can be construed as to be a slippery slope? At most it is a step in particular direction. Again, it is one subject, the Super Bowl, a singular event in our culture. There is nothing about his statement that necessitates an expectation of a slippery slope.

Third, a reasonable response to Ray’s post would be, “Hmm, that might be worth thinking about and dialoging about.” This is proper because not only did he not make any pronouncements about anyone else’s need to follow him in his decision but also because it was not an argument. It was a statement of personal conviction.

Fourth, your response seems to be a veiled defense of your enjoyment and the lack of a shared conviction. You could have just as well have shared your feelings and be assured Ray would have enjoyed your perspective.

Appears to be a slippery slope???

Rich B.

I think you hit a nerve here…one coursing with idols. thanks for this.

In the last few years I’ve discovered I can deeply follow my Texas Longhorns and Indiana Hoosiers thru blogs. It’s too much, I’m going too far — I can recite the narrative of games and seasons, and sometimes I find myself during the season reviewing those narratives in my head first thing in the morning walking the dog. And that’s not from watching full games — just snatches, and DVR skims and then maybe 5 minutes a day reading blogs.

My wife tries to tell me, “Gary, it’s OK, relax.” But the little daily drip adds up to a little preoccupation that takes my mind away from more meaningful things. You can only think of one thing at a time, you know. I just sense it’s not right, though I would never tell anyone else not to.

So for me, same challenge — it’s not what I’m living for.