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

to him Panda Bear remains post-modernist in a good way (though not as good as full blown modernism was) whereas "On The Floor" would be post-post-modernist, indicative of a culture where quoting from the past is so accepted and routinised that it registers barely if at all.

Part of the appeal of postmodernism is/was that stylistic signifiers are a major part of the content of a given piece of work. If the J. Lo song is just quoting a riff, it doesn't have that in the same way. Postmodernism involves a greater commitment to some kind of style.

I think that's what Tim F was saying. Without those signifiers we get into some kind of post-postmodern "everything old is new again" situation?

"Listen folks, the best way to read a Reynolds book is to ignore the introduction and the opening and closing chapters which are supposed to contextualize the whole thing, and read the rest of the chapters in any order you like. He's good on the little details and the overall theme is generally garbage."

yeah without repeating myself, the opening and closing chapters kinda ruin in fact what is basically like a slightly conflicted ('this shouldnt feel right.... but it does!') love letter to retro scenes. i loved the bits with billy childish and the guy from the crypt label and the cramps. the book in fact made me more in love with crazy retro obsessives. the first and last chapters basically ruin the premise of the book and have little to do with whats in between. he should have just written a book in full favour of retroism and given the first and last chapters to the wire or guardian or something.

whole book is kinda rockist btw. even in spite of the bits on hip hop and dance music. like hes just waiting for rock to get 'futuristic' again, forget the places which are futuristic (limited though they may be).

It's easy to see how someone valuing postmodernism would hear a record like Britney Spears' "Toxic" and hear the signifiers but not hear the commitment they would in, say, Stereolab. So, just drawing a distinction between those two things is not being inconsistent.

"Toxic" may not be so great an example actually.

I think what is inconsistent about the approach is that in a situation where you are saying modernism is better than post-modernism which is better than post-post-modernism, you are ignoring the fact that (what looks to you like) modernism is more likely to emerge from (what looks to you like) post-post-modernism than it is from (what looks to you like) post-modernism*.

i.e. it is precisely the lack of "commitment" in a past-sampling pop song to some vision of the past that can make it more fully "present". Despite the prominence of the sample, "On The Floor" has much more in common with other pop music of 2011 (which admittedly SR considers to be revivalist from top to bottom anyway) than it does with Kaoma.

A better, or easier to read example in retrospect is something like Missy Elliott's "The Rain(Supa Dupa Fly)" - yes, it samples "I Can't Stand The Rain", but the presence of that sample does not make it different in character or resonance to Missy's other hits of that era not based around a prominent sample.

So the problem I have I guess is that this three-tiered hierarchy should really be considered to be more like a loop - distinctions can be drawn, sure, but not across-the-board qualitative distinctions.

* To be more accurate I guess SR seems to go for what you might call meta-post-modernism - music which he considers doesn't so much bring elements of the past to the present (I don't think he's a massive post-95 Stereolab fan, for instance), but rather erm "problematises" the very relationship between past and present - e.g. hauntology, music which seems to want to capture the sepia-toning-and-fading effect of misremembering and nostalgia (Boards of Canada, Ariel Pink, Panda Bear). However, this strikes me as a category within post-modernism rather than apart from it.

The thing is, and I can speak for myself here and my own perceptions over time, I personally felt, quite genuinely, that serious postmodernism in pop music was a type of advance. So, in that sense, I was perhaps seeing it as a modernist-like development. It certainly didn't feel like any less of a modernist-type development than, say, punk or '80s New Pop.

Tim can you break down what ou mean by "advance" in that context? It's not that I disagree, more that I think understanding what we mean when we use such terms in different contexts really gets to the heart of this issue.

Yes, quite simply that when I first heard Stereolab in 1993, it was a moment when I felt that underground rock music had just made a major shift.

http://www.thefreemanonline.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/declaration-of-independence.jpg

http://www.amspressinc.com/thumbnails/rae_2_small.jpg

Yes, quite simply that when I first heard Stereolab in 1993, it was a moment when I felt that underground rock music had just made a major shift.

― timellison, Friday, 29 July 2011 03:25 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

To sounding like Neu?

Is there something about Stereolab that would distinguish their brand of postmodernism from prior bands that had heavily referenced the past (Jesus & Mary Chain to name one random example)?

It wasn't just Neu!, it was this crazy confluence of things - Velvet Underground, Young Marble Giants... It was very specific (as opposed to a group like the Jesus and Mary Chain) and, to me, also seemed to poise a challenge for indie rock to take sound - equipment and production - more seriously.

jesus & mary chain strike me as extremely specific

Really? I'm certainly not saying it hadn't happened before. The first Bangles EP is very specific.

what makes a record specific?

yeah, it definitely wasn't just Neu. Krautrock + french pop + John Barry twangy spy guitars + then contemporary shoegaze, all combined into something new. And it was very "post rock" in the sense of embracing disco, easy listening music of the '60s, breathy female vocals, etc. in a way that American bands of the time weren't really doing. I don't really see how JAMC really referenced the past much at all???

but rather erm "problematises" the very relationship between past and present - e.g. hauntology, music which seems to want to capture the sepia-toning-and-fading effect of misremembering and nostalgia (Boards of Canada, Ariel Pink, Panda Bear).

This strikes me as way too much rationalizing of what he likes vs. what he doesn't like. BOC, Ariel Pink, and Panda Bear all plunder the past, but they're great. Other bands are influenced by the past and yet suck. That's the only distinction that matters.

I don't really see how JAMC really referenced the past much at all???

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

I mean, Reynolds argument seems to be that music is on the decline because of too much borrowing from the past. And yeah, he recognizes that there's a big historical precedent for such activity, and yeah, he's complicit in the retromania, and yeah there are contemporary artists who borrow from the past that he likes because they're good, but still, it's a path that's doomed to lead nowhere. I guess it makes sense what people are saying about ignoring his whole ridiculous introduction and conclusion. I'm not sure I could make it that far since I read these articles he's been writing lately and I disagree with basically every sentence in the first and last third of each piece.

you guys are making this book sound fucking terrible

saying jamc doesnt reference the past is wtf. its the beach boys w/ hella guitar distortion + whiney otm

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

re: be my baby beat...

I guess this is similar to my issue with the dubstep stuff where people focus on the rhythm above all else. Sure they used the Be My Baby beat on one song. But everything else about that song and everything else they did sounds totally unmistakably '80s.

multi xposts

sometimes I wonder if half of the people who mention the beach boys have ever actually listened to a beach boys song.

the whole of "Just Like Honey" sounds like Phil Spector via Husker Du, dogg

sometimes I wonder if half of the people who mention the beach boys have ever actually listened to a beach boys song.

― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Friday, July 29, 2011 4:24 AM (52 seconds ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i have, in fact, listened to many beach boys songs fyi

I guess this is similar to my issue with the dubstep stuff where people focus on the rhythm above all else. Sure they used the Be My Baby beat on one song. But everything else about that song and everything else they did sounds totally unmistakably '80s.

multi xposts

― lizard tails, a self-regenerating food source for survival (wk), Friday, July 29, 2011 4:22 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

isnt the issue more that you seem to just ignore rhythm?

stereolab doesn't sound totally 90s?

But everything else about that song and everything else they did sounds totally unmistakably '80s.

How could I forget this Jesus And Mary Chain classic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8rZWw9HE7o

A band like the Lyres were more fundementally postmodern than the Jesus and Mary Chain, I would think. "More specific" meaning lots of detail.

What about that song sounds like the Beach Boys besides a simple I IV V progression and a major key melody? There are no vocal harmonies, no intricate arrangements, and the lyrics aren't remotely beach boysesque. I can't hear anything that I would consider to be a signature of the Beach Boys.

stereolab doesn't sound totally 90s?

Maybe I just don't have enough perspective on it yet, but early Stereolab still sounds pretty convincingly '60s french pop + '70s krautrock + '80s shoegaze to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb4OJ4EQajk

yes. that's a cover of a beach boys song. that sounds like an '80s shoegaze JAMC song. simple cover versions are postmodern now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JhbR4XbN4U

this song is actually more explicitly 'beach boys' than 'my little underground' crossed w/ some john cale shit

the BB cover was just ~tweaking u~

I don't know, the Beach Boys were primarily about the vocals, and JAMC just sounds like typical '80s moaning british dude who can't really sing stuff to me. But if you want to prove that JAMC were on the vanguard of this retromania decline then knock yourself out.

the whole of "Just Like Honey" sounds like Phil Spector via Husker Du, dogg

what sounds spectorish besides the beat? and husker du is an '80s band too dogg

Why not The Smiths even?

Or is the key with Stereolab that they never really pushed a singular personality that was distinct from their source material, such that you can spend all day playing spot the arcane influence?

Would you distinguish them sharply from Saint Etienne?

Perhaps Stereolab are the moment that bands stop trying to cover their tracks and instead start signposting them?

I might accept that perhaps.

wait, who do the smiths sound like? lol, I'm like the tuomas of '80s british music here.

that they never really pushed a singular personality that was distinct from their source material

It's not that they didn't push a singular personality - they most assuredly did - but compared to Saint Etienne, I think Stereolab's source material was just a bigger part of their overall essence.

to my mind, the sharp distinction between stereolab and saint etienne is that stereolab were good.

Have you heard Good Humor?

The key in my description was "distinct from" - i.e. what emerges as the "vibe" of Stereolab is not fundamentally different from (and does not "transcend" - though I hate that word) the stuff they're playing with.

I would have thought Saint Etienne's source material - girl-group pop, Bacharach, Gainsbourg, dub, dream-pop and house - all were a pretty big part of their overall essence! I would actually describe them in exactly the same terms - they def. have a personality but it's one intimately bound up in the things they're reviving.

Whereas The Smiths are obviously influenced by rockabilly and 60s pop and Marc Bolan and the like but their personality doesn't feel so much like an expression of these influences.

No, I actually think one of the striking things about Stereolab was how distinct their personality was from that of their influences, even though those influences were so crucial.

I don't know if I've ever really heard girl-group pop or Bacharach in Saint Etienne to the extent that I hear, say, Neu! in "Jenny Ondioline" or "French Disko." I know Saint Etienne were very postmodern, but I don't know if they were as specific.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes.

My point with the distinction with The Smiths is that even when you hear the rockabilly or whatevs the imprint of "The Smiths" on top tends to obscure them.

Whereas it's almost impossible to think of Stereolab (but also, I would argue, Saint Etienne) separate from their influences.

Tim have you heard Saint Etienne's "Grovely Road"?

But at what point are you just talking about kind of general pop group influences and references? I mean, the Stray Cats were rockabilly influenced. The Smiths, not so much. The Beatles and a million other bands did cod reggae numbers but that's not really the same thing as, say, On-U Sound.

even when you hear the rockabilly or whatevs the imprint of "The Smiths" on top tends to obscure them.

Exactly.

No, I don't know that song - just listening to Tiger Bay without the expanded track listing, though. Was the electronica element on it retro in 1994? (I ask because you'd mentioned house, but I didn't know if that qualified at that time as a retro element.)

There's also a real drama to Saint Etienne's music that is very strong and which I cannot pin to the past. I think it pervades the music and overwhelms its postmodern aspects more than what Laetitia Sadier did in Stereolab.

I don't think there are any Stereolab songs that sound so much like Neu! that they actually could be Neu! songs in a parallel world. Stereolab may be a new kind of paradigm, but not because they don't "transcend" their base material. A band like The Strokes might fit the bill better, in that they have songs that more or less could have come out in 1978.

Obviously all bands "reference" the past in some way, so if retromania is a valid concept it can't just be about referencing the past but the way one does it.

Obviously all bands "reference" the past in some way, so if retromania is a valid concept it can't just be about referencing the past but the way one does it.

yeah, I can't believe that anyone would deny the obvious differences between the bands we're talking about. When Stereolab came up, Tim F immediately said "[shift to] To sounding like Neu?". Which is a pretty common response to Stereolab. I've never heard anyone say "The Smiths? oh, you mean that band that sounds exactly like Gene Vincent?" "Hey mom, you like the Beach Boys? You might also like the Jesus and Mary Chain."

No, I don't know that song - just listening to Tiger Bay without the expanded track listing, though. Was the electronica element on it retro in 1994? (I ask because you'd mentioned house, but I didn't know if that qualified at that time as a retro element.)

No, not at all (though not achingly modernist either, unless doing a handbag house single counts which maybe it does). It's more that doing the "hey let's connect past musical ideas with current ones" seems to be a fairly standard m.o. including in respect of Stereolab (and other bands in the early 90s from Primal Scream to Pulp to Pram to other bands that don't even start with a "p" like Laika).

At any rate I wasn't denying that Stereolab might be different to previous evocations of the past in pop music, I was just saying I don't think they are year zero for post-modernism in music, and it seemed odd that Tim E was saying that they represented a "major shift" in underground rock when the ways they can be distinguished from other bands evoking the past seem pretty specific to them.