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

Being into music and giving a shit about wider cultural impact are the same thing now?

no, they're getting further and further away, possibly.

I just think that music culture - whatever that is - is more global and less governed or shaped or framed by elites. Of course some people are going to have adjustment problems with that.

no, they're getting further and further away, possibly.

― Post-Manpat Music (dog latin), Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:12 PM (1 minute ago)

i hope so!

xp Speaking for my racist, elitist friends, I want to say thanks for clearing everything up so eloquently.

post - it's amazing to me that you wish music to live and breathe in such microcosmic isolation. honestly - i have serious trouble getting my head around this, unless all you listen to is the most minimal of minimal music.

Same here. I don't know how you can separate music from the culture that produced it or have so little curiosity about the world outside. I've always loved how music could be a way of understanding and learning about the world.

All you have to do is go back and look at previous decades to see how significant - even revolutionary - pop music was felt to be - how it seemed like the great 20th century popular artform with resonances in cinema, fashion, visual art, literature and so on. It does not hold that position anymore. That's not to say that listener x's experience is going to be any less joyful or fulfilling but SR's interest isn't listener x.

Leaving aside the point that viewing pop music as "the great 20th century popular artform" was diddling jazz and cinema itself somewhat, surely not obviously not ALL pop music fulfilled that role, even in the 60s. One of the things I like best about Popular is how Tom overlays discussion of certain myths or received ideas of an era with an examination of what was actually popular at the time and how jarring these can be, and shows up what's been airbrushed out of pop history. And the bits that stay in are, time and time again, the bits with mystique or bohemia or exoticism, things that Simon is bemoaning a lack of, and things you never notice if you're actively looking for them in the same places they used to be. Whether you're complaining that nothing has the same impact it did in the 60s to saying that nothing feels as significant as the music that came out when you were 13, it's basically the same thing.

There's still resonances of pop music in visual art, cinema, literature, fashion - very obviously in some cases. But there seems to be an arbitrary divide between "glue" (pop music in a Scorcese film) and "space filler" (pop music in a video game, or a film by a less fashionable director). You only have to look at the changing critical treatment of disco (or, say, Black Sabbath) over 30 years or so to know that the people constructing narratives sometimes drop the ball - who's to say they're not dropping it now?

I'm not really that interested in artists or personalities or whatever or even narrative - maybe in history to an extent but not about modern music. I wouldn't say I'm looking to separate it from culture, I'd say I'm not looking for it to have some kind of impact other than on myself (I don't need to read about or even know who the artist is and I don't care what the man in the shop says about it)

I kinda find "this record in this one genre sounds a bit like this other record in this other genre" type stuff annoying

I disagree with Simon's points in that piece to some extent, but the idea that the the things people use to discuss or arrange or consume art have usurped the art itself is a pretty good one imo. There was a time where music was a big connecting thing for people, a way of making the world seem smaller. Post-internet how could it ever be this way? As I said before, is Spotify a bigger deal culturally than any of the albums on it?

I think where I'd disagree with Simon is the implication that this means music is worse. Plus there are certain tribal communities still around where music still is a focal point, obviously there are loads.

Jazz was an enormous influence on urban culture - it informed the fashion, the architecture, the nightlife - yet it got little credit by boomers (and their kids, apparently).

Again, it's about time frame. I thought we were talking, as is SR, about the pop era from the mid-50s onwards, at which point it usurped jazz. I'm not denying jazz's enormous, pivotal significance in the preceding decades.

xp Interesting, post. Like the more extreme death-of-the-author lit-crit. I don't come across many (any) people who are that purist.

Oh yeah, we're talking about post-1950 really, that was just an aside.

i'd say lots of people here feel that way DL, or i'd have thought so.

xp Interesting, post. Like the more extreme death-of-the-author lit-crit. I don't come across many (any) people who are that purist.

― Strictly vote-splitting (DL), Wednesday, July 27, 2011 4:44 PM

I'm not really that purist about it, it just doesn't occur to me to think that way - plus the majority of the music I listen to is either instrumental or the vocals aren't in english - and then with some of the music that is in English (some country) I think of the singers as characters

I'm not looking for, or interested in, the story behind the song or anything like that - find it completely alien

well not completely alien, that's an overstatement but like i would never read an interview with anyone or follow someone on twitter

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.

I can't believe more people here don't disagree with this. His whole premise is just insane to me. Not only do I not see any stasis, but the stuff being mentioned as "new" like dubstep sounds really retro to me.

If you took a random dubstep or grime track and dropped it on the dancefloor in the middle of a jungle set in the mid '90s, nobody would have blinked an eye. It wouldn't have sounded new or alien or blown any minds. But I would have gone crazy for an album like Person Pitch if that came out in 1997. Because while it's influenced by '60s music it doesn't actually sound like anything from the past.

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

It's an incredibly narrow view that privileges electronic music and makes a lot of faulty assumptions in the same way that rockism does with rock. The idea that futurism in music is somehow a form of progress is like wanting every novel to be science fiction. I think the growth of electronic music in the '80s and '90s led to this whole generation of musicians, djs, writers and fans who have a very limited musical education and no historical perspective so they can't see beyond their little niche. That, combined with an antagonism toward rock or anything that's considered old fashioned left a whole segment of people really unequipped to understand what's happening in music now.

If you took a random dubstep or grime track and dropped it on the dancefloor in the middle of a jungle set in the mid '90s, nobody would have blinked an eye. It wouldn't have sounded new or alien or blown any minds.

A dubstep track in a mid-90s jungle set would've cleared the dancefloor!

yeah because the rhythm is a bit different. not because it would be sonically alien to the audience.

Again re: dubstep, the big difference is technological more than compositional. Jungle by modern dubstep standards is crude and trebly. Software and hardware innovations are what make dubstep what it is - music that is as much a product of being able to produce a great bass response an loads of subtle detail rather than a seismic shift in musical attitudes.

I also think if you want to talk about a supposed stasis in pop music there are three separate elements at play which some people are conflating: economics, cultural importance, and the actual style and form of music.

Economically, recorded music is fucked and might never recover. And that has certainly had an impact on what music gets financial and media support. If you're looking for the new Nevermind, you're not going to find it, not because it's creatively not there, but because it's economically unfeasible at this moment in time.

In terms of cultural importance, I think it's pretty obvious that recorded music and film, the two dominant artforms of the latter half of the 20th century, are going to start their historical decline. The same thing happened with theater, poetry, and painting, and it's not like music will go away, but the particular form of recorded music that we're used to is almost certainly going to begin a slow decline into irrelevance.

And I think those two factors are mostly what people are responding to when they perceive a stasis. Revivals of past styles is a wholly separate creative phenomenon that has no bearing on whether or not music has a cultural impact.

Don't know why I said 'again' just there.

Again re: dubstep, the big difference is technological more than compositional. Jungle by modern dubstep standards is crude and trebly. Software and hardware innovations are what make dubstep what it is - music that is as much a product of being able to produce a great bass response an loads of subtle detail rather than a seismic shift in musical attitudes.

I totally disagree, but at any rate these technological changes extend throughout all recorded music at this point. Rock music that's supposedly retro sounds equally different to its influences in terms of the sonic details. I mean consider an album like Andorra by Caribou which sounds like it's heavily influenced by the Left Banke yet doesn't actually sound like any music that was released in the '60s. Now you could accuse it of being "retro" but I'm confident that 30 years from now it's going to sound incredibly "2007."

It's an incredibly narrow view that privileges electronic music and makes a lot of faulty assumptions in the same way that rockism does with rock. The idea that futurism in music is somehow a form of progress is like wanting every novel to be science fiction. I think the growth of electronic music in the '80s and '90s led to this whole generation of musicians, djs, writers and fans who have a very limited musical education and no historical perspective so they can't see beyond their little niche. That, combined with an antagonism toward rock or anything that's considered old fashioned left a whole segment of people really unequipped to understand what's happening in music now.

― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Wednesday, July 27, 2011 5:10 PM (10 minute0

Well actually I love electronic music, which is why i find that particular viewpoint a bit frustrating. I think house/techno is steeped in musical tradition, and connected to jazz and disco - and i don't require anything to sound 'new' or 'alien' (i don't require it NOT to either!) and concepts like new or alien are often contextual and personal (obviously a lot of great dance music is made with really very old gear!). I don't really think the fetish for the new is an electronic thing - i think its a British thing, and historically that has largely been down to the music press (its probably slowed a little since the music press began to wane, but that turnover culture is still in place).

And specifically what technological advances are you thinking of that allow for "great bass response and loads of subtle detail" that weren't available in the '90s? Because no offense, but that kind of sounds like nonsense.

Well actually I love electronic music, which is why i find that particular viewpoint a bit frustrating.

me too, for the record. I've been obsessed with electronic music since I was a young child, recorded electronic music for about 15 years, etc.

I don't really think the fetish for the new is an electronic thing - i think its a British thing, and historically that has largely been down to the music press (its probably slowed a little since the music press began to wane, but that turnover culture is still in place).

Yeah I think you're probably right. It's just that a certain generation of British fans and writers came of age with electronic music so that kind of defines their framework for what they consider "new".

A British thing? Up until very recently it's the UK rock press that's been championing retroism more than any other outlet I can think of. I assume y'r referring to dance music in the uk here.

A British thing? Up until very recently it's the UK rock press that's been championing retroism more than any other outlet I can think of. I assume y'r referring to dance music in the uk here.

― Post-Manpat Music (dog latin), Wednesday, July 27, 2

more in the music press heyday (1990s), turnover of genres both dance and non-dance based (how long did some of these things - shoegaze!? actually last?)

but yes probably more prevalent in dance-genres - but - significantly, british dance genres

(I think you're conflating "championing future music" with "looking for the new next big thing" which is really not the same thing at all?)

(I think you're conflating "championing future music" with "looking for the new next big thing" which is really not the same thing at all?)

― Aphex Twin … in my vagina? (Karen D. Tregaskin), Wednesday, July 27

yes true - i am now!

my original point was about just the idea of electronic=future being a british thing rather than a specifically electronic thing

then my explanation was meant to be that this was partly because of the british media (and that there is a parallel in non-dance genres, the turnover aspect, but without the future thing)

Wk - I'm no tech head, but i'm gonna assume that since 1993 rigs in clubs, studio equipment and audio software have come on quite a bit in order to satiate bass-hungry ears. Half the point of dubstep is that the beats aren't as furious and clattering as d'n'b, allowing for the sub-frequencies to breathe and expand. Sure you could have made something like dubstep in the mid '90s but it wouldn't have had the same resonance with audiences as it would today when we have vibrating floors and rigs designed for maximum bassweight. It's one of the main factors that's allowed and encouraged a lot of dance music in recent years to slow down while retaining its muscularity - goes as much for house and other genres as well.

xpost, more random thoughts

The paradox of it, is that these constantly changing micro-genres promoted by the British press actually create a stasis of their own. I guess I value variety and eclecticism so to me, when I hear jungle, d&b, garage, 2 step, dubstep, etc I feel like they should be 5 different tracks on one artist's album, not entire genres that are mined for a couple of years. And then you hear a song from the '60s or '70s that doesn't sound like anything else, that represents some underexplored possibilities and ideas that haven't already been driven into the ground, it's logical for an artist to want to borrow from the past.

I'm no tech head, but i'm gonna assume that since 1993 rigs in clubs, studio equipment and audio software have come on quite a bit in order to satiate bass-hungry ears.

I really don't think so, but I could be wrong. Certainly on the production side, no. But I don't know much about live sound reinforcement. I haven't heard much of a noticeable difference in live sound over that period, and amps and speakers still ultimately abide by the rules of physics. I guess there are some new materials being used for speaker cones and maybe some different trends in cabinet design but I don't know how much of an impact that's actually made on the end result.

Half the point of dubstep is that the beats aren't as furious and clattering as d'n'b, allowing for the sub-frequencies to breathe and expand.

So it is just a simple question of arrangement then, rather than a technological change.

no idea what you're talking about re:house music dog latin - definite emphasis on a) vinyl and b) (old) analogue equipment in house music

c) how long have funktion ones been around?

my original point was about just the idea of electronic=future being a british thing rather than a specifically electronic thing

I don't think that really makes sense. When electronic music was new, there was obviously an objectively futuristic quality to it. But that was in the '40s and '50s! That feeling lasted for a while though since the technology took time to mature and it took a while for electronics to be fully absorbed musically. And then subsequent technological developments came with their own temporary feeling of newness (drum machines, sampling, autotune, etc). But the same is true for earlier advances in technology like electric guitars and organs, or even the drum kit.

then my explanation was meant to be that this was partly because of the british media (and that there is a parallel in non-dance genres, the turnover aspect, but without the future thing)

Yeah that's true. I think the problem is really with dance music specifically rather than electronic music more generally. It's a form that on the one hand has a hunger for the new and yet simultaneously creates all of these stylistic and musical constraints (such as prescribing particular bpms) that lead to a stasis.

I would have gone crazy for an album like Person Pitch if that came out in 1997

Me too, but mostly because it would have fit in perfectly with all the stuff I was already listening to around then...

I didn't remotely get the sense from this book that Reynolds thinks music has gotten "worse" -- I mean, he's obsessed with Ariel Pink, so looking backwards clearly isn't an absolute sticking point for him. The most interesting parts of it aren't really about "stasis"; they're a bunch of different micro-histories of revival movements, collectors, reissue labels, etc., mostly in the service of getting a big-picture look at how we think about new/old anyway. (And part of his take is that it's people who "know" about music who experience the stasis, while plenty of genuinely new music still comes from the usual places -- e.g., dance crazes for city teenagers, music that has a function and is attached to a specific pocket of culture.)

P.S. -- In terms of dubstep, and most every other UK dance trend of the past 10 years or so, the giant tech development I see is software synths. There's a particular dry / hollow / "cheap" sound, totally characteristic of all that software, that's all over every one of those genres -- I don't know why it's never remarked on that this is the one new technology that's had a massive effect on how things sound. It just happens to be a slightly rinky-dink sound, not some mind-boggling futuristic one.

the whole 'future' concept/buzzwording is a bit misleading - i mean in the early 70s i doubt led zep sounded like 'the future' or that ppl imagined led zep were pointing to some brave uncharted world, but they were def sounding diff to what came before, doing something that didnt really sound like the previous generation, hence they were innovative. i think thats all SR is asking for. and for it to get into a mass-accessible space, though thats just harder these days.

no idea what you're talking about re:house music dog latin - definite emphasis on a) vinyl and b) (old) analogue equipment in house music

c) how long have funktion ones been around?

― post, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 17:56 (28 minutes ago)

I banged on about this in a review of Nicolas Jaar a wee while ago, but house/techno has been getting slower and more minimal throughout the last ten years but retaining its power and muscularity.

The paradox of it, is that these constantly changing micro-genres promoted by the British press actually create a stasis of their own. I guess I value variety and eclecticism so to me, when I hear jungle, d&b, garage, 2 step, dubstep, etc I feel like they should be 5 different tracks on one artist's album, not entire genres that are mined for a couple of years. And then you hear a song from the '60s or '70s that doesn't sound like anything else, that represents some underexplored possibilities and ideas that haven't already been driven into the ground, it's logical for an artist to want to borrow from the past.

― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Wednesday, 27 July 2011 18:51 (37 minutes ago) Bookmark

This is a good point. Before my induction into dance music proper, I used to scoff at people who "like melodic uplifting trance but have also been getting into dark melodic trance recently", but for a long time now dance is about having an idea and running with it for the length of a DJ set or mix CD. Rock doesn't really work like this, and yet it's the rock press nicheseekers who weirdly seem to want to achieve the same thing. They hear something and try to turn it into a movement rather than accepting it as a single statement or song.

well except in house music most dj sets are still vinyl only, and people use analogue kit to get away from the flimsyness of vsts

lots of traditional music works that way though

Me too, but mostly because it would have fit in perfectly with all the stuff I was already listening to around then...

Like what!!??? I would have been totally hungry for something like that back then.

I guess I should read the book. Based on the premise, what I've read about it here, and what I've read of Reynolds writing in the past, I was assuming that I wouldn't like it. Still, I think there's an implicit value judgement if he's asking why there's less forward looking music now, and if he thinks there's a danger in "retromania".

I also disagree with you on the differences with softsynths which are subtle at best.

and again, those technical changes would apply to every other form of music including the most boring stuck-in-the-'90s cookie cutter rock music, since everyone uses vst synths, plugin effects, pitch correction, sample replacement or layering, drum retiming, etc.

it's not the sound of software synths that has changed things drastically, it's the fact that DAWs and soft synths have gotten both way, way better and way more accessible since the '90s. that's had a massive influence on the musical content of '00s electronic music.

Yeah, and I think that's true with everything. Accessibility. The accessibility of self-recording for all types of musicians, the easy access to all of this music from the past, access to what's going on musically in the rest of the world at any given moment. All of that had a massive effect on all types of music in the first decade of the 21st century.

it's almost as if some huge information sharing system has come to dominate everything we do in the last 20 years.

ham radio killed music :(

There's many truth bombs in this thread but the one that resonates the most is Nick's point that we all speak from our own history. I'm in my mid-40s and am experiencing that common mid-life crisis where nothing penetrates my psyche like it used to and/or things that used to give me PLEASURE merely satisfy now. When it comes to music, I'm still finding things to love albiet not nearly as often as I used to. As far as I'm concerned that has little to do with the music being made today, it's all about my own expectations and open-mindedness (or lack thereof). Right now I'm finding more to love from the past but to cast aspersions over the entire output of the present is foolhardy. It's right and appropriate that my reaction to new music today is wildly different than when I was 17 and it was ALL new.

Having said that, I'm never going to give up searching for new sounds but the effort required feels greater than the reward at this moment.