― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:29 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:31 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:33 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:44 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:48 (twenty-one years ago) link
as i understand the superword concept (and if i'm misinterpreting then i'm merely freeing it from the tyranny of frank's fixed defn...haha "superword" is a superword), it's the exact UNreliability of the word itself which gives it its power. attempting to fix any defn to it is what stimulates the debate, arguments, pissing contests, whatever. to say that punk "takes shit as fucked up" is to affix a defn to punk is taking PART in the superword idea, but fairly useless in deconstructing/understanding the idea of the concept itself. likewise, me calling beenie man or the klf punks (which i wholly believe btw) is another way to take part in the superword idea, but again, fairly useless in defining the concept, which slips in and around artists/scenes/sounds with frustrating (or wonderful, depending on yr take) ease.
― jess (dubplatestyle), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 18:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:02 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:03 (twenty-one years ago) link
For what it's worth I'm listening to the Poison Girls right now and they're one of the best punk groups ever from what I'm thinking, and half the songs are gentle ballads sung by a woman who rivals Marianne Faithful for general expression!
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:06 (twenty-one years ago) link
I've never heard the Poison Girls, but you say they're punk from what you're thinking. Well, you must be thinking something that we can comprehend and you feel is a viable definition of punk or else you wouldn't have said that word to us.
So yeah, I can see why the KLF are punk conceptually (they poop on rules and all that). But the point remains that there's good reason to attempt to define punk, otherwise it would be worthless superword to throw around. Superword means we debate, not that there's no answers.
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:36 (twenty-one years ago) link
It's certainly contextual (friends/labelmates of Crass, noted anarchists, etc.). But then again Crass themselves tried all sorts of styles and approaches under the rubric and anarchism doesn't have to mean sounding like the Sex Pistols (or whoever).
Superwords are fun (hey! that word!) to throw around. That's why I'm bemused by the fact that apparently Avril Lavigne is hated because she claims she's punk. Is that really a reason to hate?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:47 (twenty-one years ago) link
Actually, wait. When I was 18 I was a bitter music-nazi who would have hated her punk co-option and been trying to make myself like free jazz. I was so stupid then.
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:51 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 20:12 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 21:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
This thread still hasn't gotten into social category.
So here goes. There are two types of people in the world, Pseudointellectuals and Real Intellectuals. Pseudointellectuals talk about Chuck Eddy's motives, while Real Intellectuals talk about Chuck Eddy's ideas. OK, I'm being rough, and Jody and Dave Q probably will talk about both. And I certainly don't think that discussion of motives should be taken off the intellectual table. But come on. Most people who talk about Chuck's motives do so as a way of evading his ideas. [More to come.]
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 18 November 2002 08:59 (twenty-one years ago) link
― dave q, Monday, 18 November 2002 15:57 (twenty-one years ago) link
― J (Jay), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:14 (twenty-one years ago) link
As far as social category goes though, I'm usually not comfortable with them. People who define themselves as part of a group usually feel the need to live up to some outside standard, and therefore might ignore their personal tastes. The only times I don't flinch are when people say it with some humor (i.e., "oh god, look at my record collection. I am SO emo.") or when their definition is rather broad. I know we all do it, but it's dangerous to get hung up on it. I think most of the time Chuck uses it to explain why people's tastes get messed up.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:40 (twenty-one years ago) link
wittgenstenisms flounder like lenored blouses in a warm breeze
but i like this superword thing
― a-33 (CDT GCSE only), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 01:10 (twenty-one years ago) link
Anthony this is the worst thing I have ever heard you say. Mainly because it is philosophically either indefensible or trivial depending on how you approach it. What does it mean for a person to have taste except as it relates to the taste of others? Furthermore, who here doesn't need to live up to some outside standard (many, usually)? I wear nice clothes to work and speak to people in a certain way and address friends a different way and cut my hair so I look fresh and etc.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 06:32 (twenty-one years ago) link
― dave q, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:39 (twenty-one years ago) link
― dave q, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:46 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:49 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:05 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:06 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:23 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:35 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:44 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:44 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Ben Williams, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:50 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:56 (twenty-one years ago) link
I mean, we can safely assume indie rock is not a pastry or an interesting new way to whittle. There for the definition of indie rock must exist, lest people think we're talking about pastries. However, if someone thinks ECM is indie-rock, there's logic to it. And if somebody is trying to say "Britney" is indie for some god-unknown reason, there might be logic to that too. But since no logic would define Millard Fillmore as "indie rock" we can assume the definition of Indie Rock would exclude Millard Fillmore.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:07 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:08 (twenty-one years ago) link
If there were no social categories, then everyone wouldn't all be individuals, rather we would all be the same, or at least unable to distinguish if we were individuals.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:14 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:16 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:17 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:20 (twenty-one years ago) link
they can't be punker than the punkest punk cz that's me
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:24 (twenty-one years ago) link
I blame Dick Hebdige.
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:52 (twenty-one years ago) link
Movie critics don't make value judgments based on the audience's class/ethnicity/gender.
Yes they do - well, change "based on" to "taking into account," and they do. They may not be aware of it, though. Maybe they're not as thoughtful as music critics. (Should probably change that to "maybe they're even more thoughtless than music critics.") But smart movie critics like Otis Ferguson and Manny Farber and Andrew Sarris didn't ignore the relation between taste and social category.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Thursday, 26 December 2002 05:22 (twenty-one years ago) link
I don't dislike social category as an issue. I do think it tends to be deployed in somewhat kneejerk fashion in music criticism. To wit: what the "working class" like (or rather are presumed to like) is usually valorized as good, real and authentic (because it questions and/or unmasks society's status quo through some combination of primitivism and montage effects), and what the "middle class" like (or rather are presumed to like) is usually dismissed as bad, fake and inauthentic (because it upholds the status quo through some combination of "lightness" and holistic investment in "quality"). Often class is invoked as a guarantor of value in itself; the question of who exactly constitutes the classes in question is rarely examined, or indeed whether there are any other classes besides this convenient binary. I mentioned Dick Hebdige because he created what has proven to be a very durable paradigm along these lines, one that still holds conscious or unconscious sway over British music critics (but not at all among Americans) who did a bit of Cult Studs at some point in their lives...
I haven't read Otis Ferguson and Manny Farber. I do read Andrew Sarris in the Observer, and can't say I've ever noticed social category playing much of a role in his work. But I'm not familiar with anything like its entirety. I'm not so well versed in movie criticism in general, but I've read a fair bit and issues of class just don't seem to be nearly as prevalent--although it might be fair to say that the difference between taking class into account and basing judgements on it is exactly what I was thinking of...
I think there's actually a simple reason why music critics tend to be more concerned with social category than movie critics (if you'll allow me to maintain that for a moment longer), which is that music is used much more as a marker of personal identity than movies are. Kids (other than movie geeks) don't get into fights at school over tribal identification with Spielberg vs. Scorcese.
I just wish the treatment was bit more sophisticated sometimes...
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:08 (twenty-one years ago) link
The best Ferguson is the out-of-print Film Criticism of Otis Ferguson, rather than the in-print Otis Ferguson Reader. The classic (and only, as far as I know) Farber collection is Negative Space, also called Movies. My complaint - "wouldn't play what they couldn't justify" - is one that Ferguson and Farber would recognize very well.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Thursday, 26 December 2002 22:09 (twenty-one years ago) link
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:24 (eighteen years ago) link
― Cee Bee (Cee Bee), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:45 (eighteen years ago) link
this thread is the best
― caulk the wagon and float it, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:43 (eleven years ago) link
i desire an anthology of the ancient posts with as wonderful a thoughtful content : jokes/trolls/insults ratio as this one
― caulk the wagon and float it, Wednesday, 22 May 2013 19:44 (eleven years ago) link