That's it! The only ism I want to come out of your mouths is jism. Overacademic Bullshit Must Die.

But if you think people thinking about, talking about, trying to understand the music they listen to is a *good* think -- and I can't imagine you don't -- then it seems pretty obv. that bringing all tools possible to bear in this is also a good thing.

I mean you're the one making the absurd assumption that not using big words = not thinking and talking and trying to understand.

proof: the entire history of all music ever

(i forgot its actual title)

But I'll also admit that a good portion of my love for popular music has to do with a fascination and excitement about its history, and the fact that its history is constantly being written and re-written. And so listening to that Sugar song made me simultaneously think "Wow, that riff is classic! I really want to dance now!" and also "Does this mean Sugar is underrated? If so, how come? Did they suffer from not being Husker Du? Is a singer's second band always considered inferior to their first band? etc. etc." I don't think that everyone is as captivated by that aspect of music as I am, and if you're not, then perhaps criticism doesn't seem as interesting.

All the best things in life are useless.

all of this wasting of time with "ideas" when we could be doing louie louie covers in our garage!

You cannot be serious
/Johnny Mac

go listen to all music ever and see if you still think the same thing.

and what the hell is listening to all music ever going to accomplish? I guarantee you that 90% of the musicians i listen to have not read one single word of 'intellectual' music criticism.

Also, careful about my reference to "people who 'get it.'" In the context of my post, I meant something like "people who are intimately acquainted with theory" -- i.e., "people for whom 'Gramscian' is a meaningful term." There is no value judgment here. When I ask "Who should we write for?" all I'm asking is "Can we use jargon and short-hand, knowing that a certain segment of people here are more familiar with theory (and thus can follow it more easily), or should we explain more for those of us who aren't as familiar?" What are our responsibilities to our community? And Oops, if you'll notice, I don't understand what "Gramscian" means, either. So I'm not being snobbish. If anything, I want more of the explanations.

Why academicese should never be allowed to pollute music writing:

1) Cleverness is a poor substitute for intelligence

2) It swaps one form of reference spotting for another

3) It's fucking lazy. Parrots parrot because they have nothing to say. Or can't be bothered to coming up with their own ideas.

4)It's inherently exclusionary and elitist, which is surely not the point. Or is it?

5) Audiences don't need "improving."

6) But some music writers might.

7) Phrases like "zones of proximal development" Ugh!

8) Theories deal in generalisations, not messy specifics. Like pop does.

9) Nine of out ten musicians don't give a shit, though they might nod emphaticially and service your self importance, if they think you're further up the chain than they are. Which you probably aren't.

10) There are plenty of words and ideas audiences do understand (see 5) - the question is, do you? (see 6)

11) It provides a convenient filter for ideas - but what's being filtered out?

I'm going to bed. You all play nice now.

ha ha ha

you'd know at least that I wasn't talking about music theory per se when I mentioned it if you'd actually read my post. go eat a bag of dicks.

Vgotsky's not a name I came across whilst sitting my Joint Philosophy/Psychology degree a decade ago, nor did I encounter during my admittedly brief teacher training, since teachers, bless em, are mostly concerned with the practicalities of classroom management. "Zones of proximal development" will be of no use to me next time I confront my students, who will be expecting me to have a coherent plan and some sensitivitity to their individual need.

I mostly concern myself with reading proper books by proper writers, and not the kind of people responsible for what Alasdair Gray (talking about talking about a critic that described Lanark as "postmodern," if memory serves, though I don't currently have the book in question to hand) "critical effulgent," Noam Chomsky and Nabokov being the honourable exceptions to that rule. Mostly though, I'm with Gore Vidal on academics; most of them are poor writers and poorer thinkers.

Jess - you may have a point about my overgeneralising about uh, theories overgeneralising (it was late, and I've slept very little this week), but the fact remains that most theories inevitably require a set of hypotheses/assumptions, and nine out of ten are more interesting for what they exclude than include.

"Go eat a bag of dicks"

Our intellectual elite has spoken. Tremble, proles!

Have a good day, Sterling.

Just coz the ZPD is only a small element of Vygotsky's thought (he's mainly known otherwise for correctly calling out Piaget on the supposed solopsism of "inner speech" (kids talking to themselves)) doesn't mean its not useful. The general idea is that a child who is five and tests at the level of a five-yr.-old will test at the level of say a six-yr.-old if put to work with a seven-yr.-old or a twelve-yr.-old to help them. That area of overlap of social and thought skillz is what Vygotsky termed the ZPD. 'course there's more to it than that.

I'd suggest the lack of vygotsky in yr. classes is more an indication of the poverty of current academia rather than academic "methods" like, y'know, thinking and writing and being rigorous about it. Not to mention which thinking just coz something is boring means its no good is rockism of the worst sort [not to mention "proper books by proper writers" -- I suppose you prefer proper musicians who play proper instruments too, y'square.]

(besides which, the phrase is translated from Russian -- cut the guy an even break don'tcha.)

& I think you miss Jess' point which isn't about the specificity of theory but rather the generality of pop.

The "generality of pop?" Pop may well have general appeal, but its basis is always specific individual experience, and by proper writers I meant folk who make me appreciate the generality (though I prefer *universality*) of the human condition by focusing on the nitty gritties. Given the purpose language is communication, there's nothing "proper" about the impenetrable polysyllabic doublespeak that constitutes a lot of academic writing.

I don't have a problem with thinking. I do it every day. Sloppy thinking, however..........

"I suppose you prefer proper musicians who play proper instruments, y'square."

Heh heh. This is the other problem with (let's be fair: a lot of) academics, people. Beneath all the cleverness, they're just snidey namecallers, using dubious assumptions to justify indulging in dull oneupmanship.

And there's nothing rigorous about that.

Ecfuckingzactly