Article Response: The Death of Pop, Part 1

The key paragraph being, perhaps:

'In pop epistemology, a complication is introduced via the procedures of projection and identification that Elaine Showalter describes in "Critical Cross-Dressing." The knowing subject of popular epistemology no longer contemplates "mass culture" as bimbo, but takes on the assumed mass cultural characteristics in the writing of his own text. Since the object of projection and identification in post-subcultural theory tends to be black music and "style" rather than the European (and literary) feminine, we find an actantial hero of knowledge emerging in the form of the white male theorist as *bimbo*.'

I am not saying that teenage girls are especially vulnerable and need extra protection from generalization. It's more that *whenever* these generalizations start to knock around - whether they're about teenage girls, or 'music geeks' who like crappy records, or Scousers who left for southern New Towns at an early age, or people who write pastiches of Bruce Springsteen - laziness, slackness and insenstivity are probably trailing in their wake.

OK, we often need generalizations. They're not always bad in principle. But generalizations about 'what teenage girls are like' are liable to be too vast to be helpful. It's not that teenage girls are all grate and kool, or that they're all dumb consumer dupes. It's that they're all different.

I try not to be the first to bring the "teenage girl" archetype into a discussion. It tends to get brought in anyway, usually by people making generalisations about the sort of people who listen to pop and making them in a negative way.

The academic as bimbo thing is somehow related, surely, to the Momus interview, where some *very* interesting things were said that nobody's replied to, least of all me.

I might try and explain the autonomy thing later but I've had so little sleep it wouldn't be sensible to do it now (very briefly it's not to do with an actual assumption of artistic autonomy or not, it's to do with the presentation of that autonomy as something to be valued in the consumption of the records. This is present with R'head and black metal and not with, say, Westlife. Listening strategies - listening to non-pop music *as* pop, for instance - are something else entirely and I'll get to them).

Tim H and Glenn are both right about several other things and hopefully things will be a bit clearer when the other parts of this article-series have emerged.

Final pedantic clarification. Moments in Love is not a specifically pop-oriented feature. It just so happens that the first two entries were deservedly celebrated chart hits. (Daft Punk isn't even pop by my tight definition anyway, though very possibly they might be 'post- pop').

Tom claims that the excellence of chart pop started two years ago and is about to end, or has ended. Perhaps nothing has ended but Tom's brief flirtation with it? From my perspective as someone who has hated chart pop since I was twelve, I didn't see any difference between Baby One More Time and say, Fantasy by Mariah Carey. Chart pop sucked, always has, always will. But I'm 21, and just discovered indie rock and all its inherent snobbery last year. I'd be willing to put money on the prospect that in five years or so, I may turn into a Backstreet Boys enthusiast just the same, or whatever their equivalent may be in 2006. I won't be writing any articles about how indie rock is dead, though. I'm not so sure that pop actually changed anyways, or if there was a deliberate 'movement' of nu-pop at all. If I were Tom, I'd be asking myself if this wasn't all just a musical version of the convertibles-and-Ray-Bans mid-life crisis. Of course, I'm also asking myself if I should just go out and buy a few turtlenecks for the long, cold, snobby road I'm going down every time I write articles for the school newspaper about free jazz. But seriously, do others agree that pop is getting worse, or are people just getting tired of it again?

And it does what I think any good name has to do which is address, confront and reverse the main criticism of the music - that it's manufactured, alienated, and production line. So machine pop is saying 'yes we know', and it's also saying that not only are these good things but that they are actually the neccessary things that differentiate this genre from other ones (which is kind of what my article is getting at).

Apart from that, obviously, I stand by my relatively irrelevant comments about 'teenage girls'.

if not, then it follows that you'd find nothing (or very little) redeeming in britney et. al.; if so, what do you see as the difference? and i pinpoint 60s pop in particular because i think much of today's pop comes straight out of the 60s, only fused with 80s technology.

your argument, as i understand it, seems to imply that a) the author might not be meaning it -- which (again, i hope) i cna tell you is not the case, if not for tom, then for myself -- and that b) listening should be strictly regimented and restricted for smart folks (it should have meaning), which seems to be what momus is saying in his interview in pop:art. to quote josh: why can't it be both? why can't i, for example, go from listening to the new mandy moore single to the new beta band single to neu! to sisqo, enjoy each for their merits, and then go online and write just why i like these things, despite the fact that they have little to nothing in common?

apologies if i've gotten it wrong.

As for pre-fab thinking, obviously one of the hard parts about these disembodied conversations is we each arrive with so much context and background and we try to compress it into little signifiers to save time. By "mindless pop" (you didn't put a question mark on your "query" earlier, so I didn't realize you were asking a question) I mean the same thing that Tom does when he talks about pop in which he says the image is essential and the context (in the usual critical sense) is not. I do believe there's an "us" and a "them" here, where "we" are people who think about and discuss the meaning and implications of music, and "they" are the people who don't analyze why they like what they like. I don't think this is a controversial distinction, and "we" (this forum) just discussed it in another recent thread about "taste", so that's why I didn't expand on it here. Also: the counter-examples I gave (Shampoo, Kenickie, Alanis) were all young and female, so I don't think I'm arguing for middle- aged maleness as an ideal; and I didn't say that thoughtful attention means reading the lyrics. I agree that rhythm and production may communicate just as much, although lyrics are usually easier to talk about.

Hey, I could head this post TOTALLY IRRELEVANT MURKIFICATION...

He also, despite a fair number of words, fails to make any case for his implication that while ‘mindless pop’ treats ‘teenage girls’ as an undifferentiated mass, any other music made and distributed as a mass-produced product (that includes 1000-issue 7” singles, or anything which isn’t created as an individual artefact) treats its audience as individuals.

Re: saying what you think you are expected to say: MTV is just LESS GUILTY here as a tool of patrol than are the protocols of ordinary academic discussion.

A: "What 'we' share makes us smarter. What 'they' share makes them dumber." OK, A is the shape I hate. WHAT IF:

B: "What 'we' share makes us dumber, and what 'they' share makes them smarter?" It's not that I kneejerk *believe* B (how cd I?): what I kneejerk believe is that if you don't examine B properly (= openly, as A REAL QUESTION, not just nervously batting it away), then your smarts (which in many other respects may be VERY VERY smart) are nevertheless in the process of self- immolation (= eg the story of Indie, from the Velvets to the Strokes...)

2. I agree with Mark that Mitch overstated the us/them distinction a little bit. I'm sure there are plenty of people who consume music thoughtfully who don't write about their thoughtfulness in online discussion forums. But there are people who consume music thoughtlessly. This is more or less a premise of the article we're supposedly discussing, which in a sense sets out to defend thoughtlessness as a listening strategy.

3. Also, I wasn't trying to make a detailed case here that anything is better than anything else. It's another premise of the article that there's a difference between pop and some music that isn't pop. I'm objecting to Tom's claim that pop ought to be exempt from the kind of criticism applied to every other kind of music. I think about Roxette the same way I think about Low. That is, the same questions apply, even if they're answered differently. Tom's argument implies, among other things, I think, that your (Tim Hopkins') question about whether any music treats its audience better than pop does is one of many that can't be answered, because pop is immune to the kind of analysis that would be required to make sense of the topic. I think it shouldn't be. (And I think it's pretty certain that if the kind of pop Tom is talking about gets subjected to the same analysis used on Radiohead, it will not come off very well. And I think Tom knows that, so I wonder to what extent this article's argument amounts to "I can't defend pop, so I'll have to argue that it can't be attacked.")

I'd argue that different critical approaches are more appropriate to different musics, yes.

In terms of how I listen, it generally works like this. I hear something, I react to it, I try to analyse and verbalise my reaction. Inasmuch as this involves actually thinking about the music, this analysis will involve the music. As I understand it, Glenn's listening process, (or his listening-for-writing process), is a bit different, in that he has an end in mind, a 'review' which will present a value judgment of the thing.

Oh, and my reviews often do not involve value judgments. People sometimes complain that they don't...

Part of the point re so-called "mindlessness" is that in machine-pop a HUGE AMOUNT OF MIND (as in choices and techno-resources) goes eg into things like rhythm-pattern or basslines or texture, yet the EASILY READABLE element in these is indeed pretty fugitive, as Mitch pointed out. But to jump from there to "meaningless" is clearly nonsense: the meaning derives — same as ALL meaning, actually — from the interaction between performer and performed at, and from which meanings get noticed and cemented and reused as overt dialogue, and from which ones fly low and free, appreciated yet unremarked. A lot of otherwise intelligent unpop [ps not a Momus ref] gains its somewhat pompous narrowness from the artist's assumption that he's meant to be more in control of "total communication" than (a) he's competent to be, (b) anyone remotely wants him to be. Most "machinepop" is collectively created, with diff. aspects delegated to diff.teams, with result that it's dense with tensions and even contradictions more apparent to outsiders than insiders. This makes it i.exciting, ii. a much more valuable guide to the present — where most things wor like this — than eg novels or poems, where the author is believed to have TOTAL CONTROL and COMMUNICATIVE RESPONSIBILITY.

Latter = a dud also, because more of WRITTEN communication is pre-fab than pop communication? (Do I believe this?)

The moment of worry and of death-by-self- doubt came — didn't it!? admit it!?!? you all laughed at me back then!?!?!?!?!?!? — when Myleene the high-graduating classical music student treated Hear'Say's #1 as the Oscar speech chance to condemn the merely airbrushed and pitch-adjusted within boyband zone, and to raise the issue of MEASURABLE MUSICAL TALENT!! (ie an objective craft-skill she demonstrably has...) *That's* criticism; that was a stinging aesthetic challenge from within the territory, by the REAL new kids on t'block. POPSTARS changed the pop landscape (largely thanks to Kym Marsh), by shifting the locus of value and potential communicative meaning.

(Beside, Mitch, the answer is actually NO: this isn't the early 60s, when popsters had no perspective on WHAT ROCK MIGHT BE... Ronan can read Mojo as capably as you or me; it's just NOT a one-way viewing portal...)

1. "...like debilitatingly superficial and conformist propaganda aimed at precisely the most impressionable. I can see all sorts of socially- encouraging, self-awareness-inducing, self-image-improving things ...[in]... Shampoo and Kenickie and Alanis ... I haven't been able to discern any such potential value in Christina Aguilera or O- Town ... This is pop going nowhere, targeted at people in exactly the life-stage where they have to start deciding where to go. It's soma, poured into the water supply of a city that needs to wake up..." [Apologies for chopping chunks of the para. for brevity]

If you don't think that's mentioning politics, then we understand the word 'politics' very differently. If, as I suppose is possible, you mean the 'city' needs to wake up to a state of critical music litening, then we are also working with two different meanings of the word 'need'. I understood you to be saying that 'the city' 'needs' to become more aware of issues of social importance ("socially- encouraging" etc) which, it seems clear to me, is all about politics.

2. I assumed your comment that specifically "this sort of pop" treats its audience as an undifferentiated mass implied that some other sorts of pop didn't. Apologies if I misunderstood. If I didn't misunderstand, I'd like to know which sorts don't.

Meanwhile: appreciation of 'art' possibly requires communication (I don't think it does actually but this is another bigger question). Appreciation however need not work as part of an artistic dialogue - when we look at and appreciate a cloud, the only communication is between us and whatever part of ourselves we want to project onto that cloud.

Now of course I'm not calling Pop a natural phenomenon (and of course our appreciation of nature is totally mediated) but in its diffusion of artistic autonomy it perhaps becomes possible to appreciate pop more in this fashion, more 'directly' maybe (and open up perhaps fruitful lines of listening to more 'communicative' music forms, too).

(The corporatisation that makes this possible also makes pop ubiquitous, and I'd agree that this isn't a good thing at all, but it's the fact of the ubiquity that's bad, not the specific products that have become ubiquitous.)

Ah, I thought you meant politics politics, as in governments, my mistake. To re-respond to your point, then, it's not that I'm saying critical music-listening is synonymous with these positive awarenesses (self-, social-, philosophical-), nor that it's necessary or always sufficient, but it's one route. To live an examined life, you have to start examining something. I happen to believe that music is one of the most powerful and accessible art forms, and thus one of the most obvious candidates, and that's why it seems like such a loss to me if we, or they, or anybody, passes up the opportunity to take music seriously and demand, at least some of the time, that it be more than just entertainment.

And yes, I do think that there is plenty of music that doesn't treat its listeners like a potential-consumption blob, it just wasn't part of my response to Tom's piece to explain what, since I think it's a point of agreement between us. I think a lot of my weekly column is effectively devoted to examining what kind of reactions different kinds of music are prepared to produce, but here are three quick examples of what I mean:

- Mark Kozelek's "Ruth Marie", my favorite song from last year, is (oversimplifying) a first-person portrait of an invalid old woman's willingness to die. It is long, slow, repetitive and quiet; there is no way you'd ever mistake it for a fight song, and I suspect very few people would manage to appreciate it without paying attention to the lyrics, because there's not that much music to distract from them. And because the text is emotionally complex, and Kozelek does not provide any interpretation of his own, you are left as a listener to figure out your own reaction to it, a reaction that will probably have an emotional character.

- Low's "Violence" has potentially interesting lyrics, but they're much less narrative than "Ruth Marie"'s, and not as much the focal point of the arrangement. But the song is so disconcertingly spare, by most people's pop standards, that it immediately raises some interesting questions about the nature and boundaries of pop and rock. It's fairly hard to imagine that Low had any illusions of it becoming a chart hit, so arguably one way of treating your audience as individuals is to make art that quite clearly seeks a limited audience, rather than aspiring to ubiquity.

- And to pick one example of a very different sort, I don't know if you ever saw the video for Vai's "Deep Down Into the Pain", with Devin Townsend's berserker vocal performance, but coming at a time when musical aggression levels and macabre imagery were not yet nearly as common as they've become in the eight years since, I thought the song, and especially the video, were pretty bracing, thought-provoking in much the same way that punk initially was. And unlike with Marilyn Manson, later, I didn't think the song tried to dictate the terms of anybody's reaction to it. If you like Marilyn Manson, or like liking Marilyn Manson, it's pretty clear what you're supposed to do about it, how you're supposed to dress, what you're supposed to claim to be interested in or not. If you liked "Deep Down Into the Pain", I don't think it was at all obvious how you were expected to express it.

We could argue about these examples, of course, but I hope we won't. I'm just trying to give you an idea of some of the kinds of things I don't find in "I Want It That Way" or "Genie in a Bottle".

There are some reasons why this way of thinking can seems convincing and plausible. There are some reasons why it can seem unhealthy and unfair. But from my POV, the simplest reason why I suspect it doesn't work is that I don't agree with 'You', so I am not part of 'Us'. I mean, I think loads of you are terribly intelligent, and some of you are very charming, but we don't share enough views about pop music to be a 'We'. And possibly this goes for many other people on ILM and elsewhere, too.

Also, disagreement doesn't invalidate us-vs-thems. The point of that exercise is to look for commonalities of viewpoint among groups that share characteristics, not to stipulate them.

Tom's article is great, BTW, and while parts of it surprised me I found myself agreeing with it. Like most other styles of music, Pop (and "Pop", for that matter) fails when it attempts to second-guess itself. Similarly, the more clearly defined the critical discourse surrounding a given field of music, the more tightly constrained the rules dictating its creative development become. Which is why the surprising consensus in the Focus Group is vaguely disquieting rather than cause for celebration: machine pop has been characterised by its very unpredictability these past few years - the yawning gap between the product and a critical context in which to place it. Obviously therefore, it's a sense of excitement that exists in an inverse proportion to the field of music's critical rehabilitation (a euphemism for the entrenchment of critical orthodoxy).

Don't think I agree with Glenn M about commonalities. Not sure I understand his point about 'stipulation' vs 'searching'. I could find some common ground with some people on ILM (or at Goodison Park, or in the House of Commons), and some non-common (uncommon?) ground. The 'we' that might be produced in the process would be at best pragmatic, provisional and strategic, and could easily be undermined if we decided to start talking about what divided us rather than what united us.

[I think this is an interesting discussion, but I do sometimes feel like it's the victim of the Zenotic Method, which consists of demanding clarification of every term in a point, and then demanding clarification of every term in the clarification, etc.]

On reflection, I think it's becoming clearer that Stevie T was right in what he said, above, and that 'The Death of Pop' is an embarrassingly bad title, which is not really redeemed by talk of 'deliberate hyperbole', 'provocation', 'irony', etc. As ever, though, this is to cast no slur on the talented geezer Ewing himself, even though I think I am realizing I find his whole take on all this a mixture of the incomprehensible and (when comprehensible) unacceptable.

Partway through [Frank's] book, in the chapter discussing "Superwords", I get quoted, a quote from this odd piece, which I've not dared read since I wrote it. My reluctance was based around my never finishing it - I never wrote the subsequent parts, and after a couple of weeks I'd forgotten what was meant to be in them. I was also afraid I'd read it again and think it was wrong - which I now do, but it's not wrong in any terrible or humiliating way so I don't know why I was so fussed.

The 'death of pop' piece sits as one of my most grievous examples of that Kogan bugbear, not following through ideas. I'm never sure how seriously I take this - I think a lot of ideas are un-follow-through-able, or rather than if you try to follow them through you get ground down and tired, so it's better to just spray them out and see if anyone else can do anything with them. This was always a guiding notion behind ILM, which I actually started half-based on a description I'd read of a Frank Kogan zine (its other parent was the "Question of the Month" box on 80s Marvel editorial pages). But maybe when I say "better" I simply mean "more fun" or "lazier".

This actually ties in a bit with what I was talking about in the Death of Pop piece. The bit I like most in the piece now is the section near the end about stage magic and pop existing in the same precarious showbiz state. In stage magic, pretending that it's all for real (i.e. that you actually possess supernatural powers) is seen as vulgar or a cheat; showing the wires is also frowned upon. A magic performance, in other words, is an idea that refuses - or cannot survive - a follow-through. Somewhere in the tangle of the article I'm suggesting a similar thing about manufactured pop.

Except stage magic is - or used to be, I don't know enough about how it works these days - a stable form where this refusal is built-in and understood by performers and to an extent by audience. Pop is unstable, judging by the continual movement of its performers towards perceived autonomy and credibility (which very rarely translates to achieved cred). The 'death of pop' I was getting worked up about four years ago is always with us, a constant career trajectory. So the question is: why? And also - to paraphrase a question Frank Kogan asks a great deal - what do the performers gain by that? What does the industry gain? What do we listeners gain?
Tom | 12.15.05

OK there is a pretty simple answer to "why" to do with people growing out of whatever pop stars they first get into and the idea/received wisdom that the pop needs to 'grow up' with them. But this feels a bit simplistic and I think there's more to it.)
Tom | 12.15.05 - 11:06 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, stage magic has *some* instability in it -- it wouldn't be culture if it didn't have at least have a smidgen, but it's especially obvious in the more "post-modern" magicians like Penn & Teller, who sin against the Magician's Oath and actually explain some of the hoarier tricks to their audience.
Michael Daddino | 12.15.05 - 1:01 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, one thing I'd want to question or test is whether the "pop" impulse precedes the "self improvement"/"grow up" impulse or can be separated from it; that is, one shouldn't simply assume that we start fun and grow into seriousness. (E.g., maybe Max Martin grew from heavy metal to Cheiron.)

(And of course, thanks for the compliment.)
Frank Kogan | 12.15.05 - 1:04 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In Simon Frith's Performing Rites he says that pop, folk, and art aren't three different areas of culture but rather three discourses that tend to run at once in all areas of culture. And my thought when I first read Death of Pop Pt. 1 is that the oversimplification comes from assuming that when you're in "pop" you're playing by pop rules, as opposed to rock rules or art rules or whatever: whereas I see each performer and each performance setting up its own rules (albeit as a continuation or variation on what that performer or genre has done before). E.g., it's understood that Montgomery Gentry aren't claiming "this really happened" when they talk about the girl who leaves the narrator to go out west and partake of the hip-hop mess and then comes back because she really prefers down-home Montgomery (neither Montgomery nor Gentry wrote those lyrics, even), but it's also understood that Montgomery Gentry stand by the values and attitudes in the song, making the song very much part of their autobiography. And in "Tough All Over" you don't assume that Gary Allan is singing about an actual breakup of his ("Well, I hope you're not hurtin'/On the other side of town") whereas on "Just Got Back From Hell" everyone who knows the backstory knows he is claiming this really is autobiography (backstory mentioned briefly in CD booklet: "Angela Herzberg was a beautiful wife and an awesome Mom. We miss her very much. Maggie, Dallas, Tanna, Ty, Stormy, Cole and Gary. If you or someone you know is contemplating suicide, call 1-800-SUICIDE or go to the National Mental Health Association at www.nmha.org for imformation") - yet that backstory also affects what you feel when you listen to him sing, "Life size dominoes/One falls after another/Things are tough all over" back on that breakup song he didn't write. I don't know if you'd call this magic, but there's an intensity that hangs like a ghost over the whole album.
Frank Kogan | 12.15.05 - 1:44 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One problem with the original piece is that you talk about "...Baby One More Time" and "Bills, Bills, Bills" as if they were the same phenomenon, making your contention that no one differentiated the pop images inexplicable. "Bills, Bills, Bills" was self-consciously challenging, jazz-tinged r&b with supposedly sophisticated lyrics on the subject of romance and finance, a theme in popular black music that goes at least back to Bessie Smith. And the song got massive play on the hip-hop/r&b stations. The two followup singles crossed big onto the fledgeling Radio Disney, but there was no need to change style after that to get adult "cred," since Destiny's Child had the cred already. The interesting career trajectory is Pink's, since she followed as the freaky-white-girl takeoff on Destiny's Child, with similar words and music, same airplay, and just as much cred with everybody except herself. Her rebellion was to demand that on record she get to be the messed-up late adolescent that she perceived herself to be, and she jumped to rock to do it, getting even bigger on Radio Disney as a consequence. Now, this can be considered personal and artistic growth, but in image it's a move from "adult sophistication" to "teen agony." Which is why "growing up" is too simple a formulation (which doesn't make it altogether wrong).
Frank Kogan | 12.16.05 - 9:31 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah that's definitely one of the things that struck me as wrong about the original piece, the strange running together of various things under the banner of 'pop', "Bills Bills Bills" really standing out. I think I was reacting a lot more to the discourse about pop on the blogosphere-as-was and ILM-as-was than to the actual similarities between Destiny's Child and Britney. There was a moment when all that seemed like part of 'pop' to me.
Tom | 12.16.05 - 10:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they were all part of pop. It's just that pop doesn't have a single set of rules. And a question to ask might be isn't pop also part of the life of r&b and rock? Or maybe even the afterlife of r&b and rock? Whole hunks of Real Punk are about rock's refusal to follow through. What is the afterlife of rock? In relation to the ongoing evolution of a genre, maybe Sid Vicious and Nancy Spungen lead to Lindsay Lohan, maybe Kim Gordon and Courtney Love lead to Ashlee Simpson. Of course Ashlee's story is that she's triumphed over her adolescent self-hatred, which leaves her the question of what to do next, now that that story's been told - though she's still telling it: recently revealed to Cosmopolitan that at age eleven she'd been an anorexic, which makes her TV-movie-of-the-week more than romantic-punk-hero. "My parents stepped in and made me eat."

I don't mean that movie-of-the-week designation snidely: I've known alcoholics and addicts who've told me it was a lot harder to admit to others that they were also bulimic. The torment is certainly real.

I can't say that Dylan, Lou, Iggy, Johnny, or Axl ever figured out how to grow their music up once they stopped flaunting how fucked-up they were.
Frank Kogan | 12.16.05 - 11:57 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(The posted excerpts I've seen from Ashlee's Cosmo interview also contain these tidbits: "I think I have good curves, and they're womanly," and "I have amazing boobs. I do, I know it. They're not too big, not too small. They're just perfect.")
Frank Kogan | 12.16.05 - 12:01 pm | #

Tom, was this your premise? Some of your comments here don't seem to be endorsing this. Anyway, this is what my comments are meant to challenge. In specific instances you can differentiate between pop and something else, just as you can differentiate between salsa and something else, etc. It doesn't follow that there has to be a general rule as to how to differentiate (you might differentiate differently in different circumstances). And what I really really really do not buy is that overall pop and rock play by different rules. Each performer and performance and context and interaction creates its own rules (albeit as a takeoff on previous performances etc.), but I don't see a general "We're in pop so we don't do autonomy, or at least we do it in 'pop' ways," or a "We're in rock, so this is how we do autonomy." Audiences hold performers and artists responsible for what they do, whether the context is pop or rock, and usually it's the front person who takes the heat no matter who or what else contributed to the performance or the artwork. Singers get held responsible for what they sing, DJs for what they play, dancers for how they dance.

(Or get to supercallifragilisticexpialidoshin', as Mary would say.)

I'm remembering this thread fondly after finally meeting Mark S in person at EMP Pop 2014. This same debate is still totally going on, unsurprisingly, fueled by recent grouchy screeds in curmudgeonly newspapers, and was addressed or alluded to by multiple speakers at the conference today.

I think it may be close to true that I've changed sides on this topic, sort of, in the years since. Or maybe the sides have changed. Or maybe I've stopped caring. Or maybe I've just stopped thinking I have any idea how one "should" write about music. But the music, at least, seems better than ever.

Anyway, hello to our adorable touchy younger selves so earnestly trying to fix each other's misconceptions right away. Should have just been patient.