Hilary Duff: Joy for pre-teens, not just Humbert Humbert

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (876 of them)

yeah I wasn't using "Beat Of My Heart" as an example of why all teenpop's crap/not worth discussing, just saying that every time someone seemed to be talking some sense, the example they'd hold up in a positive light would be the last possible song I'd think of as a credit to the subgenre.

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:30 (sixteen years ago) link

(We've been having pretty good luck with it! I've never heard complaints like this within the thread itself, despite the fact that some of the people voicing their concerns here post there occasionally. But then I don't think you'd get too far with most of these arguments on the teenpop thread.)

― dabug, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:37 (sixteen years ago) link

I wouldn't post negative stuff there because it would spoil the sanctity of the thread.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:39 (sixteen years ago) link

yeah, fwiw, i don't want to seem chickenshit for only voicing these opinions outside the actual teenpop thread, but it does feel at least slightly less rude than coming in and fucking shit up in there with this kind of long debate. contrary to the impression i might've given the lex or whoever, i have no problem with the thread existing and don't wish to shut it down. (xpost)

― Alex in Baltimore, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:42 (sixteen years ago) link

sanctity of the thread

Oh c'mon, it's not like I'm talking about it like an island paradise here (maybe comparatively). I don't think there's anything wrong with a place where there's very little unpleasant skepticism (not to say there isn't plenty of skepticism, just that posters are trying to understand each other's terms rather than immediately trying to figure out what's WRONG with what the other person is saying without reading carefully, or at all) or snark or accusations being flung around all over the place.

If you post something negative about an ARTIST there, you're just part of the conversation. This happens all the time. If you post something negative about a poster, or about something the poster has said, you'd better have an argument to back it up, or at least be engaging with said argument and not just a vague (and probably uninformed) idea that there's something wrong with the person.

― dabug, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:47 (sixteen years ago) link

And I know I'm clogging this thing up with plenty of my own posts about this when I could have just gone back to the teenpop thread already, which otherwise is pretty much the only place I post around here (to avoid wasting people's time who honestly don't care so much; this thread is obviously an exception). Anyway, Alex, I appreciate you having this conversation, because this is as close to an "outside world" as the teenpop thread tends to get, and if there's animosity or incredulity or a general feeling of "creepy" here, I really want to know why.

What I don't want to happen is for some people to say "fine, whatever" and go back to what they were doing, and other people say, "post where you wanna post, free country" and have the central issues that have come up over the course of this thread just go back to being unspoken and implied, coming out occasionally in jokes.

I'd LOVE for more negative things to happen on the thread (there are plenty of negative opinions already) -- but on the thread's terms, which means you have to really justify "creepy" or "humorless," preferably by quoting an example of it at least once. One reason it's so insular lately is because of this weird sense of trepidation people get to entering it at all. Or not wanting to post something there "on principle," though they might like some of the music discussed there, when there really isn't much of a principle involved.

― dabug, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 02:54 (sixteen years ago) link

http://sandbox.thehold.net/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=142&threadid=565

― bobby bedelia, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 03:09 (sixteen years ago) link

the creepy accusations don't actually bother me - look who is making them! inadequates like dom and personality vacuums like bobby bedelia. though maybe this is because they're probably not aimed at me (unless accusers are really thick) (so i guess they might be after all).

but ilm is largely open to people saying shit like 'this paris hilton song is pretty good,' or they were until paris hilton became a running joke for lexbot

explain how paris hilton is a running joke for me? i think the album is amazing - i've seen much worse crap get gushed about far more on ilm. it's hardly the only album i've raved about excitably!

also is anyone actually going to respond to what tim f said?

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:45 (sixteen years ago) link

its a running joke because any thread with paris on immediately becomes a lex thread. she should hire you!

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:52 (sixteen years ago) link

So... music has nothing to do with context?

I would think that music has one context: silence. All other notions of context are tied to things that are tangential to the actual music.

My concern is far more with all those pitched and non-pitched notes (some of which themselves may spawn internal contexts -- e.g. chords, rhythms -- for other notes) than with those things that are tangential.

(To belatedly answer your question.)

Lex: Tim F said a lot of things. I've already denied being Michael Franti; can you be more specific?

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:52 (sixteen years ago) link

^^^ umm context is tangential, or at least not central. thats why its called context!

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:54 (sixteen years ago) link

Tangents to tangents, then.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:55 (sixteen years ago) link

i like my dinner, the fish and rice is the main thing. to be honest i really like tilapia with rice and thats what im most concerned with. much more so than tangential things like the onions and the mushrooms

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:55 (sixteen years ago) link

perhaps i will eat a piece of fish by itself tomorrow

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:56 (sixteen years ago) link

i heard a song on the radio the other day, i felt sad all of a sudden. ambushed by unexpected emotion

it was the song that was playing the day i met her:(

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:57 (sixteen years ago) link

We've strayed far from the actual notes.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:58 (sixteen years ago) link

i think it must have been the diminished fourth that got me though. i hated that bitch

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:58 (sixteen years ago) link

yea exactly, i realised soon after it was ridiculuous!

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 05:58 (sixteen years ago) link

Diminished fourths don't get 600 posts.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:00 (sixteen years ago) link

no but what i mean is. i thought i felt sad because a song reminded me of something (this nebuluous 'context', or personal identification/resonance or some bullshit), when, really, that had nothing to do with it. it was simply the notes, as i was telling geir the other day

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:02 (sixteen years ago) link

and she wasnt even that pretty, if im being totally truthful

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:03 (sixteen years ago) link

My notion of "context", admittedly, comes more from software than from whatever it was they slipped into your meal.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:05 (sixteen years ago) link

But hopefully it explains the disconnect betwixt me and Mordecai, and betwixt me and you.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:06 (sixteen years ago) link

ok, sorry, missed that bit:)

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:06 (sixteen years ago) link

no not necessarily. can you explain what it is you are thinking is tangential then?

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:07 (sixteen years ago) link

That which is not the notes -- it may be a severe definition. Lyrics are tangential (that's literature, not music); image is tangential (that's visuals); production is tangential (that's technology -- the engineering of space); marketing is tangential (that's biz), etc.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:10 (sixteen years ago) link

oh, weird!

i dunno i guess that makes emotion or resonance tangential as well. id never thought of it like that!

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:12 (sixteen years ago) link

wow thats really austere

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:13 (sixteen years ago) link

i think music can be more than that, sometimes

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:14 (sixteen years ago) link

what about music that doesnt have notes?

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:14 (sixteen years ago) link

i guess you dont like richie hawtin much!

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:15 (sixteen years ago) link

I've only heard one Plastikman EP, and I liked it.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:17 (sixteen years ago) link

aye, i know the one, did you like the note?

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:17 (sixteen years ago) link

its a good old note on that, i think its an F, im not sure though

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:19 (sixteen years ago) link

It had many notes, as I recall :)

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:19 (sixteen years ago) link

oh, that one? maybe you wouldnt like this other one then, its kind of tangential

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:20 (sixteen years ago) link

But there you go, we can't agree on what "is" is, and hilarity ensues, and sure enough, we're at 1000 posts.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:23 (sixteen years ago) link

well thats what happens when you are disingeneous!

i dont believe for a second that you view music purely as notes and have no emotional connectionl. i dont believe for a second that you dont think music can be transcendant. i dont believe for a second that you dont think that the songs people *really* love are connected to times and instances in their own personal lives

because otherwise you would be geir hongro or autistic or both. hmm, though this is ilx, i concede that

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:28 (sixteen years ago) link

I have an emotional connection to this or that piece of music or performance, but it comes, ultimately, from the notes, and rarely from a performer's stock attempts at emoting. (Someone OTT like Janis Joplin I like.)

Charlie Parker was, to judge by the little footage I've seen, deadpan and (e)motionless on stage, but I have a deep emotional connection to the music that came out of him.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:32 (sixteen years ago) link

but here you are talking about performativity, or more specifically overt emoting (or overemoting). i didnt really bring that up at all.

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:41 (sixteen years ago) link

im saying a lot of our (the publics) connection to music is external. the number of tracks that people say meant something to them, or have been huge hits, and then you'll read some article where the artist was like, yea, tossed that off in 5 minutes, or 'ugh never liked that song, record company wanted it released though'

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:43 (sixteen years ago) link

i mean i agree with you, ive never really been into 'stock' emoting, though you know that does turn you against a lot of great music (gospel!)

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:44 (sixteen years ago) link

and then we come to a (white/straight/male/indieish) type of perspective about vocals which is that they shouldnt do certain things (witness the arguments about melisma on this forum)...but that are kind of central to a lot of vocal traditions (again gospel is an obvious example)

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:47 (sixteen years ago) link

and maybe thats a difference between a kind of modern european type stereotype of distance/art/formalism/writtenmusic and an american/folk/gospel/blues tradition which maybe pays less heed to that but to one of vocal adaptation/change/improv

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:50 (sixteen years ago) link

meant to use archetype rather than stereotype and tradition there, these are hardly set in stone

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:50 (sixteen years ago) link

It's all in the ear of the behearer, and on a case-by-case basis. Gospel isn't uniformly about stock emoting -- you're supposed to be "in the spirit" and spontaneous to the point that there's no definite, decided-upon end to the performance. (xpost)

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 06:57 (sixteen years ago) link

But my, uh, tangent was a roundabout way of saying there are ways of making and experiencing music that may be perceived as alien to someone who's a hardcore defender of teenpop.

I've cured my insomnia now, I hope. Thank you, and good night.

― mark 0, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 07:00 (sixteen years ago) link

it might be, yes!

but your taking it as a given that it is. and not accepting that there is no reason teenpop songs cant be made and experienced in that way.

if you were talking about minimal techno, then yes we're not going to play and sing it sat on the stoop!

we'll just take the laptop and the midi controller out onto the stoop like everyone else

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 07:11 (sixteen years ago) link

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/16/technology/16myspace.html

― bobby bedelia, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 07:18 (sixteen years ago) link

^ lol. expertly executed. well done team

― 696, Wednesday, 16 May 2007 07:19 (sixteen years ago) link

Skipping 776 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.