What is wrong with this perspective?
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― geeta (geeta), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:07 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:10 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:13 (nineteen years ago) link
(xxpost)
― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:14 (nineteen years ago) link
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:15 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:17 (nineteen years ago) link
I'm one of them and yes, this piece works quite well for me.
― Je4nne ƒury (Jeanne Fury), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link
it's too sexist/violent/homophobic. gimme someone like mia who sez something.
There is a definite value judgement there--that it's okay to be gay, women aren't for debasement and violence is 'bad.' these are common, modern american values. and i agree with all of them. but i am not Everyman.
It's more the last part of the sentence that bothers me, though. It's not saying "I like MIA" it's saying "What you listen to is bad because it is NOT like MIA." It implies that music that does contain homophobia/sexism/violent imagery DOES NOT say something, which is quite false. It does say a lot of things. You just don't like them.
― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:18 (nineteen years ago) link
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:19 (nineteen years ago) link
xposts.
― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:20 (nineteen years ago) link
― Guymauve (Guymauve), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:21 (nineteen years ago) link
(n by xpost)
― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:22 (nineteen years ago) link
― mike powell (mike powell), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:24 (nineteen years ago) link
One can dream. They'll probably do it on dissensus, but I'm not feeling that board completely yet.
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:28 (nineteen years ago) link
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:29 (nineteen years ago) link
― j blount (papa la bas), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:29 (nineteen years ago) link
xpost
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― TV's Mr Noodle Vague (noodle vague), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:30 (nineteen years ago) link
― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― Gear! (can Jung shill it, Mu?) (Gear!), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:33 (nineteen years ago) link
― Ken L (Ken L), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:34 (nineteen years ago) link
Gotcha, good point then.
― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:34 (nineteen years ago) link
(I hope that didn't sound too pretentious, I hardly claim to be some sort of philosophy expert or something, i'm just trying to explain my thoughts in the best way i know how.)
I've been biting this paragraph from the "pop thread" on dissensus and showing it to people for like a week now, but I think it's a very good explanation. I hope I'm not changing the intended meaning by removing it from context, and I've been all quoting Tim on ILM lately which probably makes me a weirdo, but Tim F. said:
Deleuze writes, “What is an essence as revealed in the work of art? It is a difference, the absolute and ultimate Difference. Difference is what constitutes being, what makes us conceive being.” The function of sensuous signs in art is to bring us face to face with the mass of differentiated intensities, whose aggregation and conglomeration allow us to conceive of stable concepts and meanings. When I say art brings us "face to face" with this stuff, I mean that it forces us to recognise the inescapably differential nature of these affects, rather than proceed straight to the concepts which we have lazily attached to them, and which we imagine to be standing behind them in a signifying relationship. For Deleuze it would be a mistake to assume that art exists to be "interpreted", its signs read in order to discover some message or meaning they contain. This reduces art to a reflection of conceptual generalities - insert "auteurism" or "dilettantism" here. Instead, the function of art is to intensify our experience of difference – or, to put it another way, our awareness of the endless potential for differentiated experience.
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:36 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:37 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:38 (nineteen years ago) link
― Guymauve (Guymauve), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:38 (nineteen years ago) link
"There is a definite value judgement there--that it's okay to be gay, women aren't for debasement and violence is 'bad.' these are common, modern american values. and i agree with all of them. but i am not Everyman."
Why does someone voicing an opinion have to speak for Everyman?
* "gimme someone like mia who sez something."
"It's not saying "I like MIA" it's saying "What you listen to is bad because it is NOT like MIA." It implies that music that does contain homophobia/sexism/violent imagery DOES NOT say something, which is quite false. It does say a lot of things. You just don't like them."
That's kind of semantic hairsplitting. It's fairly clear what the person means by "saying something." The person is saying that there's more value in the words. (Yes, more value for himself or herself personally.)
"and no one has the right to tell anyone else what to like."
Expressing an opinion /= telling other people what to like
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:39 (nineteen years ago) link
this whole discussion is awful. go back to graduate school.
― Ian John50n (orion), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:43 (nineteen years ago) link
I know, I was just saying that was the part of the article that stood out for me the most and trying not to get bogged down in the current morass of discussion.
And, uh, no offense but your definition doesn't exactly make it more clear.
― Jordan (Jordan), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:46 (nineteen years ago) link
― Guymauve (Guymauve), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link
If the point is that the person saying this is generalizing too much about hip hop/grime/dancehall then, yeah, it's bullshit.
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:49 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:51 (nineteen years ago) link
― Tim Ellison (Tim Ellison), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:52 (nineteen years ago) link
― Lethal Dizzle (djdee2005), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:54 (nineteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Friday, 6 May 2005 20:55 (nineteen years ago) link
...but the funny thing is the author of said passage would go on to say "I saw rock and roll future and its name is Bruce Springsteen" six years later!
― theStalePrince, Monday, 30 July 2012 19:02 (eleven years ago) link
I've never understood the syntax of that sentence - surely there's a missing apostrophe s? But no one ever corrected it.
― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 31 July 2012 09:46 (eleven years ago) link
one small step for rock, one giant leap for rockkind.
― Listen to this, dad (President Keyes), Tuesday, 7 August 2012 11:09 (eleven years ago) link
Last night the NBC announcer called the olympic closing ceremony a "tribute to British rock".
― Spencer Chow, Sunday, 12 August 2012 16:28 (eleven years ago) link
in your Bangles example what is treasurable is The Bangles' commitment to a particular idea or small set of ideas about a genre or genres, and part of what is treasurable is that this choice is essentially arbitrary - e.g. it's possible that no-one except them and you and some others in the room would invest so much importance in the particular ideas of genre which they are then transmuting into new music.
I actually love this idea of commitment because I think there are no particular transcendental rules about what ought be committed too - accordingly, there's something wildly excessive about the process which makes it seem more noble to me.
― Tim F, Sunday, July 29, 2012 2:20 PM (2 weeks ago)
love this post, and i think it gets at the heart of what made revivalist genre formalism so interesting to me over the past couple decades. i remember seeing the flat duo jets a few times in north carolina during the the early 90s. they put on an incredible show, driven by dexter romweber's passionate and knowledgeable commitment to his genre (a combination of garage rock, rockabilly, the blues, gospel and southern soul). the band's performances had the quality of a tent revival. they were driven and elevated by romwebber's explosively intense devotion to genre, to the idea that such devotion might transcend formalist cribbing and become Real. there was something unnerving about it. dexter's display of devotional fealty seemed both desperate and incommensurate with the actual substance and capacity of genre. it didn't make sense. he was only executing a clutch of familiar moves, after all, rehashing bygone styles for a roomful of enthusiasts, but he did it like he thought it could save his life, and yours along with it. it was "wildly excessive", and yes, this made it seem nobly romantic.
for quite some time after this, i was interested in commitment to rock & roll as a sort of salvation-seeking. it's what i initially liked in the murder city devils, the white stripes and the bellrays. i loved their perverse willingness to say "yes, this is THE TRUE PATH, the ONLY WAY" (obviously not true), coupled with their ability to invest tired rock tropes with a scary kind of frankenstein energy. when the devils' spencer moody sang about iggy pop "rolling in that broken glass", he wasn't just paying tribute to a forebear in rock. he was reaching out to something holy, something bigger, better and more real than himself, and he was investing far more in this gesture than reason could justify, offering his performance as a sacrifice in return for some promised transformation.
this is what's interesting about devotion to genre. not the fact that genre deserves it, but the belief that it does.
― contenderizer, Sunday, 12 August 2012 17:24 (eleven years ago) link
okay, so this is ridiculous and i apologize in advance, but i get all obsessive about letting shitty posts lie. take 2:
I remember seeing the Flat Duo Jets a few times during the the early 90s. They put on an incredible show driven in large part by singer/guitarist Dexter Romweber's passionate commitment to his genre (a combination of garage rock, rockabilly, the blues, gospel and Southern soul). The band's performances had the quality of a tent revival, even to the extent that there was something slightly unnerving about them. Dexter's desperate display of devotional fealty seemed incommensurate with the actual substance and capacity of genre. It didn't make sense. He was just running through a clutch of familiar moves, after all, rehashing nostalgic glories for a roomful of enthusiasts, but he did it like he thought it could save his life. His appreoach was "wildly excessive", and yes, this gave it a romantic sort of nobility.
For quite some time after this, I was interested in attachment to genre as a form of salvation-seeking. It's part of what initially attracted me to late-90s rock revivalists like The Murder City Devils, The White Stripes and The BellRays: I loved their perverse willingness to over-commit. When the Devils' Spencer Moody sang about Iggy Pop "rolling in that broken glass", he wasn't just paying tribute to an influence. He was reaching out to something holy, something bigger, better and more real than himself, and he was investing far more in this gesture than reason could justify, seeming to offer his performance as a sacrifice in return for some promised transformation.
That's what's interesting about devotion to genre. Not the fact that genre deserves it, but the belief that it does.
― contenderizer, Tuesday, 14 August 2012 04:30 (eleven years ago) link
what's done is done
Buzzfeed on Why Beck Beat Beyoncé:http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/why-beck-beat-beyonce?s=mobile
― Spencer Chow, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 05:36 (nine years ago) link
Yeah, that bullshit set me off on fb.
― Johnny Fever, Tuesday, 10 February 2015 05:37 (nine years ago) link