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

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

Ha

^^^ Exactly. People can buy x amount of records now easily in any genre, but it doesn't explain why the public have clustered around particular, and changing, genres over that time. Merely going "it's the internet and mobile phones obviously" doesn't actually explain, say, why the dominant sound in the British charts has gone from guitar pop to pop grime and autotuned dancepop over five years, or why it might swing back or move onto something else. If you start talking about the collapse of the music industry and labels becoming tighter and more risk-averse then you're getting some of the way there, but equally it can't explain the whole story.

(That was an xpost to Tim by the way)

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.

― Strictly vote-splitting (DL), Thursday, July 28, 2011 10:51 AM

I'm not looking to extrapolate my experience - merely stating a personal state of affairs....but at same time I'm dubious at extrapolating SR's or Dog Latin's experience also

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.

INITIALLY i probably listened to way more music...but then probably returned to a more regular level in terms of volume (but a better level in terms of quality)

Agree with lex - and I don't want to state my position as either typical or unusual

― post, Wednesday, July 27, 2011 1:59 PM (Yesterday)

..

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

I don't think it's just about how people listen to music (even though I suspect that's changed more than you say, Spotify in particular being a big factor.) I think as I said, the actual role of music, as I said, as a connecting point to rest of world, is sort of gone. Again it's not really a negative thing, but I think it's fair to say in a general sea of info and opinions and v easily consumable info music might matter a bit less than it did.

I'm not making a value judgement there, the last thing I want is someone to say "oh but it matters LOADS to me, I love music." I just mean generally the role of music must have been bigger the less alternative cultural options you had to choose from, and even the less musical options you had.

The number of options is incessantly multiplying.

Maybe that's just a view that applies to the more ILXor type music fan, but I don't think entirely that that's the case, there are lots of voracious music fans that don't fit the ILXor mould.

Merely going "it's the internet and mobile phones obviously"

Not what I'm saying, but continue to patronise if it makes you feel good, while OTMing more cogent posts than your own when they suit.

People can buy x amount of records now easily in any genre, but it doesn't explain why the public have clustered around particular, and changing, genres over that time

i mean ffs why do you think i brought this point up, which you seem to agree needs discussion. cos i didn't want us to discuss it???

I'm reminded of something Billy Bragg said about the decline of protest songs - how when he was young pop was often how you found about things and certainly the major outlet, short of actual activism, for political frustration, whereas now the internet has made both getting information and voicing frustration so easy that people are less likely to look to music to do that job. Music's role as an information portal has declined. And it's not just politics but music as a way of conveying ideas about literature, cinema, ideas, fashion, tribal identity, etc. The kind of listener who never looked to music for that in the first place won't mourn that development but I do and SR does.

Spotify doesn't work in Australia yet so I have difficulty even understanding let alone appreciating its supposedly seismic effect on music listening. But most people I know still don't use the Internet as their primary means of finding out about music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkemUTvL8g

great store btw

that wasn't meant to go here

I think as I said, the actual role of music, as I said, as a connecting point to rest of world, is sort of gone. Again it's not really a negative thing, but I think it's fair to say in a general sea of info and opinions and v easily consumable info music might matter a bit less than it did.

This reminds me a bit of the articles you read about the decline of 'event TV' - when there were fewer channels and fewer things to do you'd be more likely to have these moments where big swathes of the country were watching the same thing at the same time, and outside major sporting events and Royal Weddings and the like you just don't get that any more. But for most people more choice is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily entail less TV is being watched in general or is of a lesser quality or resonates less - it's just harder to pinpoint 'universal' moments, or points when you can say "yes, this matters, this is important".

The same's true with pop music to an extent but it's never been THAT universal, it's always been about competing noises and scenes and characters and ideas of pop that in the past were easier to bundle together into universal or faux-universal moments (TOTP appearances, caring about what was number one, 'event' albums etc) and some of those fade in the memory quicker than others. And while I'm sure that "music as a connecting point to the rest of the world" and as an information portal or protest vehicle or conduit for ideas about art or literature, have always been a part of it, I'm not sure they've ever been typical of the way most people experience music. If anything TV was the main connecting point to the rest of the world for decades before the internet.

And yeah maybe they've declined (although I'd say the decline in protest songs precedes the internet) but maybe the wider sigificance of those aspects of music is also maybe being inflated in hindsight. But it's central function, as a focal point for social gatherings, isn't going anywhere any time soon, and that still matters to a hell of a lot of people.

I don't think this discussion makes any sense if you keep referring back to "most people", ie people who don't give much of a toss about music. There has to be a certain minimum level of curiosity of passion, otherwise of course pop music was never important. That's like talking about the cultural importance of football based on my memories of collecting Panini World Cup stickers every four years. It's meaningless.

Also, there's a limit to this "inflated in hindsight" angle. Yes, maybe it is sometimes exaggerated for narrative neatness, and of course the nation didn't gather round as one to watch Bowie hug Ronson on TOTP, but it genuinely did have wider significance - just look at primary sources, speak to people who followed music and politics in previous decades. Ask people who were energised by rock'n'roll or punk whether TV was more important than music. It's like you're doggedly trying to downplay the cultural significance of pop in the past in order to assert that not much has changed, but you don't have any evidence for that. "It's always been like this" is ahistorical.

Spotify is a more comprehensive rhapsody (idk if they had that in australia) and I think its more radical for people who never used that service.

Let's say you're a young black person in America in the 60s or Britain in the 70s. Where are your role models in public office? On TV? In the movies? They're mostly in music. Who's reflecting young people's impatience in 1963 or 1976? Rock bands. Now there are havens and outlets all over the place but that wasn't always the case. You can't say that pop music isn't less pivotal than it was unless your test case is always the kind of person who bought Englebert Humperdinck instead of Strawberry Fields Forever or Renee and Renata instead of Ghost Town.

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.

this is a very jagger-esque attitude

Wow! Been trying to keep up with this thread all day.

I'm in accordance with most of what DL and Garda have been saying an this relates to a dialogue i've been touting for a while. Pop and rock does not exist in a vacuum - it is both an influence on and a product of the wider changing world.
And sure there's a tendency to romanticise certain events and their impact - but this is the same with everything in history. In a strange way what's often more important when documenting music history isn't what actually happened (probably driving Ford Cortinas listening to Billy Ocean and Wet Wet Wet on the A1M) than what inspires people (the illusion of everyone flocking to Ibiza and taking berries with Danny Rampling). Of course the latter applied to only about 3 people in 1987, but which story is going to motivate people more? What is going to spurn other people into creating their own scene? Why shouldn't people be allowed to fantasise about this very individual experience that gets documented so often in dance music retrospectives? The sixties were only swinging for a tiny minority of Carnaby Street poseurs, the rest of the populace most likely oblivious to this charade. But how many have drawn influence from this ideal? Same goes for the eighties revival - people continue to dredge influence from the decade, finding more and more influences as they go. Is it so surprising this revival has been going on longer than the initial decade? I use to think so, but now I see no reason why.
The idea of stagnation interests me. Is it really us running out of new ideas? Or has the lily of rock and pop been gilded so perfectly that we can finally sit back, marvel and muse upon it?

so cliches interest you more than reality huh

Is it really us running out of new ideas?

no

Or has the lily of rock and pop been gilded so perfectly that we can finally sit back, marvel and muse upon it?

no

people continue to dredge influence from the decade

SOME people
many people don't

"stagnation" - well YOU may have stagnated but don't go putting that on everyone else please

Uh, lex, have you even been reaibg the book/this thread or...?

Reading (iPhone)

i've been reading this thread, i have no interest in reading the book and have bowed out whenever people have talked about it specifically

Xpost Look, I'm not saying people should actively make shit up an embellish the past, but people did go to Ibiza and take pills with Danny Rampling in 1987, and yes, I'd be lying if I were to say I'm less interested in hearing about that story than a Doctor and the Medics show at the Hatfield Forum.

You can't address the topics in this thread or in the book without talking about the hypothesis of stagnation. I never said, and indeed I don't believe, we are stagnating, but there is a school of thought running through this discourse that asks whether we're in danger of running out of ideas by constantly recycling the past. In fact, to save you the trouble of reading it, that's pretty much the premise of the book in the first place. And it concludes that, no, retromania isn't necessarily a bad thing. SR says himself that he'd be hypocritical for thinking so himself.

not "necessarily" a bad thing, but something that he thinks is likely to lead to a winding down of novelty in pop music right?

which he already sees as having begun over the past decade

Xpost (seems it's impossible for me not to make vast grammatical errors while bashing away at a phone, fuuuu-)

In fact, to save you the trouble of reading it, that's pretty much the premise of the book in the first place

this is why i have no interest in the book! just a stupid, stupid premise

I think this has more to do with your abhorrence of certain values than any premise, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing it and there wouldn't be a book to discuss.

Anyway, enough bickering - what about the topic of reverence? craftmanship? Learning from Past masters? Originality doesn't just drop fully fledged from the womb. The concept of originality, as mentioned in SR's bit about Japanese art and culture, is fairly recent in itself. Even in Britain, early 19th century painters were taught to paint by rote - breaking rules was unheard of. Is it wrong for a band like, say, Yuck to so admire the sound of Dinosaur Jr as to want to recreate it for themselves? What about dance artists like Lone who seems to be obsessed with mimicking early Warp records? Is that wrong? If I were an artist and someone berated me for ripping off e.g. Talking Heads, would I be pissed off, or would I take it as a complement, as having attained the sound of my latter day heroes?

Ah sheeet. Just realised I've left the bloody book lying around somewhere in Shoreditch Town Hall. I was three quarters through and all. Buggeration.

xp lex, I think you're far too dogmatic re: pop's future vs its past to accept any of SR's argument. You simply don't want it to be true, ergo you call it stupid. But it's not like SR spends his time making this shit up - there are issues to be addressed here even if you don't agree with him on what constitutes a problem.

Also, it's a cheap point to say dog latin prefers cliche to "reality". They're all competing narratives.

I think I figured out what bothers me about Reynolds' use of the term "retro."

To me, a movement like Northern Soul is what I would consider retro because of the way that it exclusively mined a single historical moment and spawned a whole nostalgic youth culture tribe. But over the past decade, revivalism has functioned much more like it did at Optimo, in terms of picking and choosing from a grab bag of the past, free from any contextual baggage and cohesive tribe-defining narrative.

Even a band like White Stripes is not quite retro in the same way as say the Jam -- again, the absence of an associated youth culture tribe. Now the artist is free to be nostalgically focus on a particular period, but it's not really required of the audience. And the framing, the imagery, the use of stuff like a Digitech Whammy pedal puts the Stripes' revivalism in a contemporary context that frees the audience from necessarily having to share the artist's obsessions.

I think musicians over the past decade have approached revivalism in a really similar way to what Roxy Music did, but Reynolds is treating it them like they're Sha Na Na.

It seems like a lot of bands today are reviving more obscure, forgotten niche styles - styles that may never have been very popular to begin with. This is less like the old retro bands and more like an act of historical detective work, which is made possible by the vast universe of past music now available to us. Finding something sufficiently obscure and trying to really understand what was unique about it and then bringing it back to life is creating something new, I think.

good point

xxxpost. Right, there are bands taking a "really similar" approach as Roxy Music in the same way that Sha-Na-Ma took a "really similar" approach as Little Anthony and the Imperials. Don't really see the difference.

My two cents is that Reynolds is a great writer about music and I love his stuff. However it seems that the protocols of the publishing industry demand that his little vignettes about the Human League or whoever have to be hung on a grand narrative, which is usually bogus and should be ignored.