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

Necessarily, a book about the fetishisation of retro signifiers is as much about stories about music as it is about music itself. Retro cannot be reduced to "that sound sounds great."

Why not? I think that at this point in history it really can if that's what you want. By privileging this idea that music is a part of some kind of ongoing contemporary conversation you seem to be denying the possibility of appreciating music outside of its immediate historical or geographic context. That is unless someone makes up a retrospective narrative to frame it for you. If that's how you want to relate to music that's fine. But if you then complain that nothing interesting is going on then yeah, I'm going to start to think that maybe the way you approach music is broken. I'm not trying to attack you personally or paint all dance music fans with that same brush, but I can't help but think that kind of singular focus on the new is what is coloring Reynolds' perception.

I think Reynolds is saying that generally speaking people, considered as aggregates of individuals, are experiencing this less and less often,

How can he say that for anyone but himself? Why is this any less of a leap than trying to presume what people in the past would think of contemporary music?

or that these experiences are increasingly refracted through notions (fantasies often) of the past.

I disagree, but if true, so what? Returning to idealized fantasies or superficial stylistic elements from the past has been a pretty fundamental part of the creative process throughout art history.

Whether this is indicative of a musical decline is a separate question.

The assumption that this is a decline seems to be the core of his whole thesis.

"whats happening in music now" = rock fans got together and decided rock was the most important music?

What appears to be happening to me is that these distinctions are breaking down and there is no more rock or rock fans. Which will obviously be a problem for people who are overly invested in these genre divisions.

You seem to be assuming that I agree with SR, which I have never said. I don't believe there's been a decline in music.

Why not? I think that at this point in history it really can if that's what you want. By privileging this idea that music is a part of some kind of ongoing contemporary conversation you seem to be denying the possibility of appreciating music outside of its immediate historical or geographic context.

I'm not denying that possibility at all.

If anything, the opposite: we need to be cognisant of the fact that the use of past sounds can signify extramusically to varying extents (down to near zero in some cases), and that to some extent the historical practice of retro-fetishism actively shapes that level of signification over time - largely, it diminishes over time.

Primarily, sonic motifs can be reused so frequently and in so many shifting contexts that their associations with a given period of history start to rub away, and they stop "signifying" the past so strongly as a result.

Indeed, part of SR's thesis, as I understand it, is that some ideas, sounds, styles etc have now been revived and re-revived and cross-revived to the point where they no longer code as retro so much. The code of retro-fetishism starts to break down.

A contemporary example of this might be someone producing a rap record that harked back to the sound of early 00s Just Blaze beats harking back to the sound of early 90s rap beats harking back to old soul records - those kinds of beats evoke the past less and less over time and just become part of the general building blocks available to people making hip hop.

We can see this dynamic with 80s revivalism now: electroclash's sonic and social signification was "overdetermined" by the 80s at the beginning of the 00s, whereas as its sonic influence has filtered through a variety of pop and dance styles through to Lady Gaga the sharpness of its revivalism has been worn away. Lady Gaga still signifies the 80s but the signification is diminished because the music also signifies the late 00s as well.

How can he say that for anyone but himself? Why is this any less of a leap than trying to presume what people in the past would think of contemporary music?

I dunno, I haven't read the book yet so I don't know how exhaustively he backs up his assumptions. But he's not saying that listeners are "really unequipped to understand what's happening in music now" so he seems more thoughtful on this topic than some people.

I disagree, but if true, so what? Returning to idealized fantasies or superficial stylistic elements from the past has been a pretty fundamental part of the creative process throughout art history.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with it.

The assumption that this is a decline seems to be the core of his whole thesis.

Again, I don't agree with SR on this, but I think his point would rather be something to the effect that eventually pop starts eating itself: its capacity to come up with new twists on the past further and further diminishing, innovation increasingly reduced micro-individuation. So it's less a case of retro-fetishism being bad in itself, but that a pop culture which operates primarily in accordance with retro-fetishism will have a limited productive lifespan.

If or when you respond, I would appreciate it if you could observe my attempts to distinguish SR's opinions from my own.

How do you know what SR is saying or whether you agree with him if you've not read the book in question, Tim?

Necessarily, a book about the fetishisation of retro signifiers is as much about stories about music as it is about music itself. Retro cannot be reduced to "that sound sounds great."

Why not? I think that at this point in history it really can if that's what you want. By privileging this idea that music is a part of some kind of ongoing contemporary conversation you seem to be denying the possibility of appreciating music outside of its immediate historical or geographic context.

To be clear, my comment here was in respect of retro as a component of music production rather than music reception.

Of course you can listen to an old record and just appreciate it as "good music", but I think that that then takes you outside of the meaning of "retro".

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro_style

How do you know what SR is saying or whether you agree with him if you've not read the book in question, Tim?

He has built up to this book with many articles and thousands of blog posts and online forum interventions.

Unless he has changed his position dramatically (which given his recent articles evidently he hasn't) I think I have a good handle on his thesis.

I'm mostly interested to read the book to see how he applies that thesis to specific cases past and present.

Tell me if you think I've mischaracterised his position though, nick.

So it's less a case of retro-fetishism being bad in itself, but that a pop culture which operates primarily in accordance with retro-fetishism will have a limited productive lifespan.

What's the practical distinction here? If he thinks retroism is going to limit the lifespan of pop culture then he certainly believes that's a bad thing, doesn't he? I haven't read the book either, but revisiting one of his recent articles on the subject in the LA Times, it's filled with disdain for anything retro. It's "the greatest danger." Young bands that reference the past are filled with "the sagging, gray flesh of old ideas". Nostalgia is either "stopping our culture's ability to surge forward" or it's happening "because the culture has stopped moving forward". It's as though he can't even conceive of the idea that our musical culture hasn't stopped moving forward, or that nostalgia can be a force for change and innovation. Because he believes that "Pop ought to be all about the present tense, surely?"

He even gives the answer to his problem when he says "This coming generation comfortably inhabits a new form of cultural temporality in which past, present and future are totally jumbled. "Is it innovative?" is no longer a question they're even asking." but then he turns around and admits that he's an "old-fashioned modernist".

To be clear, my comment here was in respect of retro as a component of music production rather than music reception.

Me too. I think we're at a point where artists can and should simply pick and choose from the past as if it were a giant grab bag of styles free of any kind of extramusical associations. So if retro means something more than just "this sounds cool", I think that's the listener's problem, not the musician's problem.

I think we're at a point where artists can and should simply pick and choose from the past as if it were a giant grab bag of styles free of any kind of extramusical associations.

There is a difference between wanting this freedom for artists (though I'm struggling to think offhand of anyone who actually lives up to the above) and the reality of music making which frequently involves consciously trying to invoke the past or ideas of the past.

It's like saying "people should be free to make science fiction stories that aren't a coded comment on the contemporary world."

Of course they should! But that doesn't mean that it's wrong to note that a lot of them, in fact, are coded comments on the contemporary world.

People inevitably draw links between these things. And a lot of people like doing so. The very concept of "nostalgia" is premised on it.

A past revivalism without those kinds of associations would be an appreciation of the past without nostalgia (among other things). I don't object to that idea, but I'm surprised that you seem to think that revivalism is not in large part about nostalgia.

I'm also interested to hear examples of music you think comprises "a giant grab bag of styles free of any kind of extramusical associations."

As I've said, I think it's possible for those associations to be worn away, but (as I said upthread) IMO that mostly occurs when an idea is reused so frequently that it just starts to sound "contemporary".

http://images.artistdirect.com/Images/artd/amg/music/cover/1770973_melliot_200.jpg

http://theletter.co.uk/images/lc/la_roux_bulletproof.jpg

http://images.starpulse.com/Photos/Previews/The-Hives-bh01.jpg

^^^ Just a collection of peeps reviving the past as a grab bag of sounds free of extramusical associations.

Returning to idealized fantasies or superficial stylistic elements from the past has been a pretty fundamental part of the creative process throughout art history.

As SR acknowledges at great length in the book, while putting his case for why the past decade is different.

At this stage in dance music's development (perhaps this has always been a case) a change in rhythm is a much bigger deal than a change in sonics. At some point around the mid to late 90s there came a point when it was pretty much possible to make pretty much any sound you wanted if you had the right equipment and enough imagination, so as listeners we're conditioned to expect a much wider sound palette than 60s or 70s or even 80s listeners. Whereas a change in rhythm impacts right at the centre of the way in which listeners interact with and engage the musi.

I was being slightly presumptive when I made my "dubstep would kill a mid-90s jungle dancefloor" point but a big part of that reaction would depend on whether the dancers knew how to actually dance to it - sonic similarities would be unlikely to override rhytmic differences in that context.

^^^ 100% otm.

Dubstep's point of difference resides less in the sound of the bass than in the rhythm's combination of sloth and stutter.

There are other issues that drive this of course, changing drug trends for example. If a drug came along next year that had the same impact as ecstacy in the 80s this whole debate would start to look somewhat quaint I'd imagine.

scmhectasy gonna be hittin' the streets hard in '12

debate is quaint already because its talking about a short period of time and is ridic britcentric

It's not Britcentric particular - we're using jungle->dubstep as one example of a wider issue, ie how listeners engage with the music and how that changes. We might as well be talking about ringtone rap vs East Coast 1994, the issue would be broadly the same.

It's not Britcentric particular - we're using jungle->dubstep as one example of a wider issue, ie how listeners engage with the music and how that changes. We might as well be talking about ringtone rap vs East Coast 1994, the issue would be broadly the same.

― Matt DC, Thursday, July 28, 2011

but the issue isn't whether dubstep or ringtone rap are retromanias or not - its that the backdrop to all this is that SR sees a 'constant motion' or 'future music' thing in jungle which is then used as a some kind of... norm against which perceived non-progress of music is judged (and he doesn't do this re:east coast hip hop circa 94 afaik)

ie - its a quick turnover of british dance genres in a particular timeframe which he is using as...some kind of rule by which other time periods are failing. That one period of time and location which happens to be his big thing

Yeah I'd agree with that, but this debate has moved off the subject of the book really and into discussion of what WK was saying upthread.

the debate already is quaint because despite bringing it up about 10,000 times nobody has thought to discuss technology usurping music, long ago, as the trend-driver among young people.

What does "technology usurping music as the trend driver among young people" mean?

i posted about 5 times already before realising i had to loudly attack someone for thoughts to be registered.

Yeah but music's at the centre of what these kids use technology for, and when they meet up and get fucked up it still centres around music (and alcohol obviously). So yeah, technology's changed the access and yes that's probably changed the trends but you're making it sound like music was it's own trend driver before the internet came along.

Kids don't, as far as I know, define themselves by the kind of technology they use.

But technology is bigger than the music. It's where all the money goes that used to be spent on music, but even beyond that technological advances have probably had bigger effects on the music people listen to than musical ones, in the last 10-15 years.

And music wasn't its own trend driver pre-internet? Erm...that is so unbelievably mental I don't know where to start.

So kids not calling themselves "spotifyers" means technology is not driving trends...right.

LULZ at that point tbh.

kids all seem to listen to music on their phone speakers now, and the sound is akin to a 70s 'transistor radio', no bass frequencies

It's because you're not being clear about what you mean, or you're talking in strokes that are too broad. The musical drivers are the same as they ever were, the artists and producers. Spotify or iPods or whatever only change the means of access to the music as well as the commercial priorities but marketing issues, radio gatekeepers and other factors peripheral to the music itself have always impinged on changing trends. It's not like music was this magical self-sustaning and renewing entity before technology came in and muddied the waters.

LocalGarda OTM. Again, I don't see why this is a controversial statement. It seems obvious to me that the most important musical innovation of the past decade was in consumer technology rather than records.

that kinda comes back to Dog Latin's point that because of technology we 'hear more' but 'listen to less'....although I'm dubious about this point because my own personal experience is actually the opposite - the % of things I hear that I like is much higher now, simply because I can choose better

post, from what you've said so far I would say you're not a typical listener. Which is great, no criticism at all, but extrapolating from your experience doesn't necessarily tell us much about how the majority are listening. Sounds like you have a great filtering system - one of SR's points is that it's easier now to get overwhelmed and distracted by the sheer volume of option.

Changing consumer technology isn't a "musical innovation" though! No one's denying that technology has had a massive massive effect but there's been no real explanation of how or why that impacts upon what people like. What's the link between technology and access to music and why the kids like Mumford & Sons or Tinie Tempah and not, I dunno, some failing indie band or girl group that are being plugged through the same channels?

The iPod and the mp3s are musical innovations, no? And wouldn't you say the compressed, synthetic sound of urban music now is phone-friendly? Just a few posts ago you were talking about ringtone rap.

Obviously it doesn't dictate every single musical trend - Mumford and Sons or Adele would have been popular 20 years ago. It's a major factor, not the magic key that explains the popularity of every new artist.

It's because you're not being clear about what you mean, or you're talking in strokes that are too broad. The musical drivers are the same as they ever were, the artists and producers. Spotify or iPods or whatever only change the means of access to the music as well as the commercial priorities but marketing issues, radio gatekeepers and other factors peripheral to the music itself have always impinged on changing trends. It's not like music was this magical self-sustaning and renewing entity before technology came in and muddied the waters.

i'm being perfectly clear, two sentences, how much more clear do you want it? the biggest events to drive what music people listen to used to be albums or songs, now they're technological advances. clear as crystal.

technology doesn't "sit alongside music", it's the place where people conceptualise "the future" now and it's the place where the big innovations and things that really wow people happen.

music takes a secondary role to that, precisely because all the music people consume is filtered through that technology, through that system.

there have been loads of explanations of how this affects or might affect what people like, do you want a list?

technology doesn't "sit alongside music", it's the place where people conceptualise "the future" now and it's the place where the big innovations and things that really wow people happen.

music takes a secondary role to that, precisely because all the music people consume is filtered through that technology, through that system.

Oh come on, this has always been the case.

The speed of consumer tech innovation now is way faster than it used to be. The big innovations of earlier eras - vinyl, cassette, AM radio, CD - were more spaced out.

Oh come on, this has always been the case

of course, but i think the internet deserves a bit more analysis than "this has always been the case".

You might have guessed that the bit I'm disagreeing with here is not that technology has changed the way people consume music (that's a complete no-brainer), but that "albums and songs" used to drive trends in themselves. They didn't!

so what did?

that's a complete no-brainer

and it only took us a few thousand posts to get to discuss this total no-brainer in any detail

Common problem in a rapidly proliferating thread - the point I think I'm arguing against isn't quite the point that is being made. Obviously records didn't drive trends alone but the record/technology balance has shifted significantly.

so what did?

Other drivers, in additions to the records themselves - marketing spend at record labels, wider changes in society, drugs, arguably MTV and the like. The internet is a factor like all of these, in fact it's bigger than most of these put together, and it's thrown all the chips up in the air but it doesn't in and of itself explain why they've fallen where they have in terms of what people actually listen to and what has been popular or fashionable over the last decade.

i just think in the past, and i am just about old enough to have taped stuff off the radio etc, music was more a window into the world and that was quite a big and important role. it still is to a point but the internet is so dominant in that role now.

and i think it's worth considering the impact on everyday life of things like smartphones, those kind of technological innovations have changed how we live in a really big way, a huge way.

people talk about rave culture in that documentary way of "then everyone took an e and everything changed" etc, which i'm sure is largely bollocks, but technology is what causes the sociological eureka moments now, and it doesn't seem to me there's any sign of that changing.

tying into earlier discussions, the talk of futurism or innovations in music also strike me as a bit quaint, precisely because we live in a world where technology is creating real tangible life-changing innovation.

i don't think people look for that in art, the sci-fi ideas of the future are there to ponder and worry about and think about, in technology, in the innovations of recent times.

x-post you're so wrong that the net doesn't explain fashions in music in the last decade....i mean come on! simple fact. if i lived in dublin in 1990 i could buy x amount of records. if i live there now i can buy infinite amount. i mean i can go on and list about 10 more major changes.

Fifteen years ago people would play "100% hits" comps at parties. Ten years ago people had song lists on their computers. Five years ago people plugged in their iPods. Now they use YouTube (the sound is surprisingly okay in a house party context).

Technology is always a big part of the story, but I think for most people their experience of music hasn't really changed a huge amount. They might obtain more music free but aren't necessarily consuming the enormous volumes ilxors tend to.

Again, technology seems more prominent now because it's an easier and more "universal" feeling story to tell than what the kids are listening to.

but I think for most people their experience of music hasn't really changed a huge amount

Obv. I'm an old bastard, so what do I know, but I suspect this true