Retromania: Pop culture's Addiction to its Own Past. (New Simon Reynolds book).

I've started reading this - so far it's more interesting than I expected.

I think it's way more nuanced and varied than any extract or review would suggest. It's more an exploration than a manifesto and the autobiographical elements enrich the ambivalence. This bit in the Telegraph review made me lol:

I found myself reading it in a sushi restaurant, with Japanese food travelling around on a conveyor belt, while digital animations projected onto a wall and the British rapper Tinie Tempah’s number-one hit single Pass Out exploded from hidden speakers in a sonic fizz of bleeping hip hop, electro, drum and bass and dancehall.

Sushi on a conveyor belt? Slow down, spaceman.

Yeah, it's definitely more than a 450-page rant about pop-music-these-days. He gets that out his system in the intro and prologue and then uses that as a diving board to explore the history and documentation of pop culture as a whole in a fairly balanced way.

Saw this is in Waterstone's the other day, reduced already, or do they do that to a lot of new books these days?

I got my copy remarkably cheap from Amazon.

I'll wait till it turns up in FOPP for £3, prob'ly three or four months from now, sorry Simon.

don't think Waterstone's reduces new stuff per se, more knocks a wedge off the RRP because it can

and yeah I don't think I've paid more than a fiver for any of the SR books I own

don't think Waterstone's reduces new stuff per se, more knocks a wedge off the RRP because it can

I suspected that, to make you think you're getting a bargain

how much cheaper? its 9 quid on amazon.

those sushi on conveyor belt places generally have mediocre sushi

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b011pph2#synopsis

Really good discussion of this on last night's edition of Night Waves (about 20 mins in). Simon is interviewed but they rope in the sceptics too.

Don't think he was too convincing, but no one was out there to get him or anything.

guys just reminding you amazon is the devil ok carry on

Excellent interview at Thequietus, as usual: http://thequietus.com/articles/06386-simon-reynolds-retromania-interview

Can I just say Thequietus is the one music site I always keep up with aside from ILM?

It's profoundly frustrating and, frankly, delusional of the publisher that in this day and age of instant gratification/digital downloads/etc. that the release of this book is delayed by 6 weeks in the U.S.

pdf/epub?

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-ca-retro-rock-20110710,0,3613794.story

Ahistorical bullshit.

Once upon a time, pop's metabolism buzzed with dynamic energy, creating the surging-into-the-future feel of periods such as the psychedelic '60s, the post-punk '70s, the hip-hop '80s and the rave '90s. The 2000s felt different. The sensation of moving forward grew fainter as the decade unfurled.

Oh you mean the psychedelic '60s that were built on the foundation of a folk revival, an interest in indian classical music, music hall, avant garde electronic music from 15 years prior? The hip-hop that was built almost entirely on sampling 20 year old records? The '90s rave music that basically just revived underground club music from the '80s?

yeah, that stuff.

If anything killed pop-music's forward momentum it was the endless fracturing of music into meaningless sub-genres with a built-in expiration date. Which then leads to the tendency to drive one idea into the ground for a couple of years before some writer coins a new genre name and people change the sound up slightly and pretend it's something different.

i find that this essay does not get more interesting every time i read it

That's because you're re-reading it, hence you're guilty of retromania!

Anyone have further information on what the deal is between the UK and US versions of this book are? I am planning on purchasing it and want to know what the best version is and who I can direct my Twitter snark at regarding these differences.

There are no differences other than the cover.

Cool thank you very much for the info!!!

why is the UK cover so FUCKING HORRIFIC.!!?>!???

i like the cover! also i think it kinda links back to the yellow and pink of Rip It Up's cover but maybe that's not the intention.

just finished this. it was a great read, beautifully written, lots to think about, and achingly researched, and if it makes people think about the stasis of pop which i dont think most people would disagree with (though there have been exceptions as this board knows like juke, grime, dubstep etc) then thats great.

but despite the first and last chapters, this was more like an exploration of retro trends and fetishists. i expected it to be more of a larger manifesto about how we have gone wrong and how we can put it right, rather than an examination/exploration of retro culture/nostalgia industries etc over the years, fascinating as all that is/was.

the other thing i found a bit strange was that for all the talk of sci fi and how space programs inspired optimism for the future and sci-fi sonics in music and so on, i thought he missed a bit about not just wanting music to SOUND like the/a future, but for music to aspire for other things to be better, all the old big battles like equality, poverty, peace (dont lol) and so on. ideological optimism for the future (or disatisfaction with the present, but then most music around or at least thats popular isnt really about reflecting much to do with the now either). but i dont think there was much about anything like that. it was largely about the sci-fi dreaming slant. didnt seem much about the diminishing role music plays in a lot of peoples lives either, the way its been relegated to something less significant than it was, which is another factor in why it wont be going at full throttle speed as it once did, or not much mention of it in any case.

^^ this. all of this. I enjoyed the book, but you're raising some absolutely key points which do get hinted at but could've been explored in a little more detail.

I say enjoyed, although admittedly I haven't quite finished it yet. It's a good read and I like the way it certainly isn't all about yelling at clouds.

it was sort of like reading a great degree/masters dissertation

i found it odd he barely mentioned the smaller role music plays in the cultural landscape these days esp when im sure he knows it/cited sci fi writers view of our tech-drowned present, which should have set him off travelling down that path, one where music is everywhere but meaning less - youd think his kids approach to media and the web etc would have made this figure a bit more.

Maybe he didn't want the book to sound so much like his blog.

the diminishing role music plays in a lot of peoples lives either, the way its been relegated to something less significant than it was

this isn't actually true

actually the book sounds very much like his blog, its quite personal at times, with him talking about his babysitter, family and so on

lex isnt it?

actually yes the book does come across at times as him fighting the impulse to go full-curmudgeon and at times i think that is exactly what was needed if he was trying to really do a lester bangs-isn 'make ppl sit up and take notice' type of piece

i think music is as immensely significant to people as it ever was

the kind of people to whom it's not significant are not the kind of people to whom it'd ever have been significant

and "significant" is a gradient anyway

xxpost: lester bangs or allan bloom? some of this sounds like "the closing of the american ear"

lex otm

Isn't it his point that music is significant to fewer people? Or plays a less central role? Rather than it is less significant to 'a person'

But then this runs into the general problem of 'royal we' nonsense

But then I don't understand the desire for music to be 'new' in the first place and find it a peculiarly British thing

Or perhaps more...the desire for some kind of idea of progress, or disappointment at its perceived absence

xxpost
ound it odd he barely mentioned the smaller role music plays in the cultural landscape these days esp when im sure he knows it/cited sci fi writers view of our tech-drowned present, which should have set him off travelling down that path, one where music is everywhere but meaning less - youd think his kids approach to media and the web etc would have made this figure a bit more.

― titchy (titchyschneiderMk2), Wednesday, 27 July 2011 11:14 (3 hours ago) Bookmark

i think music is as immensely significant to people as it ever was

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 13:55 (21 minutes ago) Bookmark

I'd be interested in hearing examples/reasons from both sides of this argument as to why/why not music is as significant to people.

It's certainly not as significant to the people around me as it used to - but that's mostly down to the fact my peers aren't teenagers any more and that I have little to go on as to modern teenagers' investments in listening.

Personally, I listen to music more than ever before and invest a great deal of time in it. But sometimes I wonder if I'll ever get as much out of music as I did out of, say, Parklife which was the first CD album I ever bought. These days I'd say 70% of music I come across gets a cursory 1-3 listens and then gets relegated to sitting around on my hard drive, maybe never to be heard again.

It's becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a record that could have the kind of cultural impact today as, e.g. Fear Of A Black Planet, Never Mind The Bollocks, Nevermind (to name three random examples) or any number of so-called "canon" albums. Sure you've got award winners, bestsellers, Coldplays and Adeles - but these aren't having any sort of profound effect on the public conscious at large, they're really just moving units in time for the next gout-du-jour. You've also got a huge amount of Pitchfork-friendly albums of varying quality.

One of the main differences, and this is mentioned by SReynolds, is that today we have access to so much new music, we arguably don't take as much time over a release as we once might. The temptation to skip and shuffle around our HDs and YouTubes is so incredibly strong. So while I was technically listening to less music in the '90s, I was listening to the same albums a lot more deeply.

Find the argument that "there is too much music now therefore we pay less attention to each release" really confusing

I never gave more time to individual releases in the past than I do know.....I missed out on stuff then also.

Main difference is, I hear better music now and play it more often

Also - I was reading an interview with King Creosote the other day where he said:

On one hand a genius from the modern age can come along and make something that sounds as good as Diamond Mine, but in general I find it a real drag and best avoided whenever possible. If technology results in a machine that drops one back into a pre-technological era, than I’m all for it. I’d punch 1974 into the dial and would probably expire in time for the millenium celebrations.

Retromania, as far as I've read, might berate this kind of attitude - but is it necessarily a bad or unhealthy position to hold?

post - seriously? are you saying you listen to the same amount of music now as you did in the pre-MP3 era? And that you honestly listen to it with the same (for want of a better word) care as you did then?

I know I'm much more likely to listen to an album if I buy it on CD than if I were to download it off D3m0noid or whatever. It's just a psychological thing of having bought a product with packaging and a disc I have to put into a machine.

That isn't what i said

what i said was the amount of time i would give to a release (ie before deciding whether to buy it)

very sorry, not sure i understand that either... ?

the smaller role music plays in the cultural landscape these days

Titchy have you, like, looked at the news at all this week?

If i went into a record shop in the past I wouldn't give any single i listened to about as long as i would today off a youtube or mp3

sorry i mean i WOULD give them about the same amount of chance