Rolling Teenpop 2007 Thread

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (2325 of them)

i love the avril album - i know what frank means about the overkill but it's not a major problem for me, though it s the difference between "very good avril, 4 stars for you" and "OMG EVERYONE U MUST HEAR THIS". my favourites are probably 'runaway' and the title track. she raps about periods!

frank what are all the musical influences she's biting? a lot of it, those massive piss-taking guitar riffs and that punky drumming, sounds really familiar, and they sound like deliberate references to things, but it's not a genre i know anything about...

i love love love 'glamorous' too - it's such a curveball. those harmonies! who knew fergie ferg was at all versed in the arts of subtlety? and yeah fergie 06/07 is what people expected/hoped gwen 06/07 to be, logical continuation from gwen 05.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:51 (seventeen years ago) link

R: To me, she doesn't go far enough. I like her style, and I think she's really cool and everything, but I want songs!

in a nutshell, robyn gives away that she really doesn't 'get' pop at all. grrr.

i really love the 'white girl' song jeezy talks about!

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 06:52 (seventeen years ago) link

"in a nutshell, robyn gives away that she really doesn't 'get' pop at all. grrr. "

I think you're wrong here Lex, you're importing onto Robyn ideas about what she's trying to do which i don't think she shares (not that i want to accord her authorial priority w/r/t her music - but if we're gonna talk about what robyn does or does not 'get'...).

To prefer "Cool" to "Hollaback Girl" (and hell, I do, although I like the latter well enough) is not the same as not 'getting' pop. I suspect that her notion of pop is very similar to Xenomania's, although she's not as good at making it. But this is a difference in degree rather than kind.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:13 (seventeen years ago) link

And anyway I thought it was when Robyn departed from 'songs' that you disliked her?

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 07:13 (seventeen years ago) link

it's the "she doesn't go far enough" i object to - i may be misinterpreting robyn but i've heard this criticism of popstars quite a lot, that despite a tendency towards one or two traditionally non-pop values (usually 'innovation') which can be approved of, they conform to traditional pop values in other ways (eg sexualised image, lyrics which are clichéd or obnoxiously dumb or non-feminist). it's the assumption that going "far" ("beyond industry proscriptions") is what gwen stefani should be about.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 08:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Lex you're precisely misreading it I think - my interpretation was that Gwen doesn't go far enough into pop! Possibly Robyn is implying that she is a pop-rock star who has only recently jumped onto chart-pop and "hasn't gone far enough"; more specifically Gwen is afraid to write "classic" pop songs with big emotions and melodrama.

(if so, she's wrong - No Doubt had a history of big pop ballads - but this interpretation makes more sense in context than the one you're giving it)

You could say that this classicism is itself a form of rockism, except that the song she singles out as being great is "Cool", i.e. perhaps the least rockist song ever!

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:15 (seventeen years ago) link

Ha ha as well of all the big female pop stars currently Gwen is perhaps the least sexualised/cliched/non-feminist (compare/contrast with current Nelly Furtado!), although I could imagine people might find her obnoxiously dumb at times.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:18 (seventeen years ago) link

well then that makes no sense coming from robyn, purveyor of mimsy imbruglia-lite ballads and cutesy kitsch facsimiles of gwen's own most out-there moments! and sure she has 'be mine' and 'with every heartbeat' but gwen has 'cool', 'the real thing', 'early winter' plus everything from her no doubt days. so it's not that robyn doesn't understand pop, it's that she doesn't bother to listen to it before sounding off.

am not sure that "classic" pop songs are the big melodramatic ones either, which is a function of my generation's big popstars being the spice girls, britney et al, who have done emotional dramatic ballads (very well) but it wasn't what they were about.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:31 (seventeen years ago) link

Why is "Cool" the least rockist song ever? It strikes me as very, as you said, classicist.

― The Reverend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:37 (seventeen years ago) link

my interpretation was that Gwen doesn't go far enough into pop!

Yeah, that's why I quoted that part in the first place. And I sort of agree with this, you tend to get lots of ideas of great pop songs but only a select handful of great pop songs. Interesting that I like way more No Doubt pop songs than Gwen pop songs.

Still processing the new Avril (may try the listening party because my copy is awful), not sure where I said this, but it frustrates me that Avril has to try so hard to prove she's fun. (Actually, it was uptrhead: "Funny that Avril does the opposite of Hilary, she's out to prove she's fun. Which isn't all that fun, kind of annoying really.")

― dabug, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:19 (seventeen years ago) link

Funny how both Hillary and Mandy Moore are out to prove they're serious but they've taken inverse sonic routes.

Avril should do more power-ballads. My favourite songs from her are "I'm With You", "My Happy Ending" and "Make It Through".

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:55 (seventeen years ago) link

BTW "Cool" isn't really the least rockist pop song ever, but it's an oddly unrockist form of classicism - if there's a pop sub-genre more impervious to retrospective legitimation than "Hungry Eyes"-style 80s pop I'm not sure what it is.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 12:57 (seventeen years ago) link

yeah my favourite avril song is 'i'm with you' - there are a couple of really good powerballads on the new album but it's mostly punky, punchy stuff like 'girlfriend'.

― lex pretend, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 13:17 (seventeen years ago) link

From Wikipedia, about the "Never Again" subject:

During a 2003 interview with Entertainment Weekly, Ben Moody stated, "We're actually high on the Christian charts, and I'm like, What the f--k are we even doing there?"[31] This seemed to go against earlier sentiments by Moody that "We hope to express in our music that Christianity is not a rigid list of rules to follow..." and also "The message we as a band want to convey more than anything is simple—God is Love."[32] This has led to criticism of the band within the Christian community, even more so given that the band themselves approved of the plan to distribute Fallen to the Christian market.[33] Terry Hemmings, CEO of Christian music distributor Provident, expressed puzzlement at the band's about-face, saying "They clearly understood the album would be sold in these [Christian music] channels."[34] Ex-vocalist and keyboardist David Hodges eventually left the band over the controversy, with other members stating that he had been pulling them in more of a Christian direction than Lee and Moody were comfortable with.

― Eppy, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:49 (seventeen years ago) link

Reason Number 6,500 that I wish people would stop using the word "rockist": the idea of being daring and different and going too far saturates popular culture of the last 100 years and preceded rock onto the planet. Also, I don't get the linkage between classicist and rockist (or is "classicist" shorthand for "going too far" and "being daring and different and innovative" etc.?).

― Frank Kogan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 19:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Lex, the references in "Girlfriend" have been cited on this thread (Toni Basil's "Hey Mickey," Rubinoos' "Boyfriend," Ramones' "I Wanna Be Your Boyfriend," Rolling Stones' "Get Off Of My Cloud"), but I think you're asking more about the sound: I wouldn't say it's referential but I do think it's similar to and owes a lot to the toonful-oonful wing of early '70s glam rock: Sweet, Slade, Gary Glitter, Suzi Quatro, the Runaways, maybe some neo-glam from several years after that by Joan Jett and Girlschool. Maybe some Bay City Rollers, though I never paid them much attention so don't remember what they sounded like. And I think most of that was too cloddy and clompy as well (exception being Slade, who came on cloddy and clompy but actually had their rhythm down), though I like the best of glam way more than I like "Girlfriend." And the melodic source of toonful-oonful glam was the real poppy rock 'n' roll of the early '60s, such as Little Eva's "Locomotion" and the Angels' "My Boyfriend's Back" and Little Peggy March's "I Will Follow Him" and Lesley Gore's "Maybe I Know" and the Crystals' "Da Doo Ron Ron" and the Shangri-Las' "Give Him A Great Big Kiss" and the Marvelettes' "Please Mr. Postman" and thousands more. I'm listing all those because that era of bubblegum rock 'n' roll absolutely crushes any subsequent bubblegum that rock has ever given us, including the late '60s Archies and Ohio Express era that got called bubblegum (a lot of which was pretty good but made itself worse by reducing itself to being "fun" rather than just being fun in the context of being passionately committed pop songs). There is some disco and postdisco and Europop bubblegum that can occasionally compete with the early '60s, but this souped-up pop rock can't. (Unless you want to count "Since U Been Gone," which I think is something else, and even there I'm feeling something forced in comparison to easy and free-sounding stuff like Bob B. Soxx And The Blue Jeans' "Not Too Young to Get Married" (which was heavily produced and I'm sure highly calculated but which lived and breathed more naturally in its world).)

― Frank Kogan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link

Gwen only dreams of writing something as good as Konichiwa Bitches.

― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 20:36 (seventeen years ago) link

OK Tim I see your linking "rockism" more to "legitimation" than to "classicism." Still, I don't see what anyone gains by calling the impulse towards legitimation "rockism." "Impulse towards legitimation" is a perfectly good phrase in itself, and the impulse is hardly limited to rock fans, nor is it avoided by pop fans. Also, it seems to me that rock and other forms of popular culture are remarkably good at not achieving consensus at what counts as legitimate, not to mention distrusting legitimacy and making the word "legitimate" something of an insult.

― Frank Kogan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:21 (seventeen years ago) link

"Also, it seems to me that rock and other forms of popular culture are remarkably good at not achieving consensus at what counts as legitimate, not to mention distrusting legitimacy and making the word "legitimate" something of an insult."

Ha ha that's almost why I would normally use the word rockism instead - the legitimacy which is being grasped most likely vanishes as soon as it is perceived as such.

Although in this particular instance I believe I could as easily (perhaps more easily) use "PBSification" and hopefully not do too much violence to the concept.

I guess it may not be obvious that for me and at this stage, the notion of "rockism" having anything to do with rock music per se, except in a historically contingent sense, is pretty much null and void. Although I think Lex might disagree.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:30 (seventeen years ago) link

"a probing and restless brainiac like Ashlee"

i have this stomach-churning sensation that this isnt sarcasm

― deeznuts, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:35 (seventeen years ago) link

But why use the word "rockism" at all? Or another way of putting the same question, how is it that you think I'm not a rockist (assuming that you do think I'm not a rockist) if we're using "the legitimacy which is being grasped most likely vanishes as soon as it is perceived as such" as a token of rockism? Or, if that's rockism, why is rockism a bad thing? (By the way, I didn't emphasize this as much as I should have 20 years ago when I came up with the "PBS" metaphor, but I think that a little bit of PBS is better than no PBS. Also, I think the PBS metaphor needed more thought than I gave it at the time. But it's a lot better than "rockism.")

― Frank Kogan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 21:48 (seventeen years ago) link

Frank I was about to come back and qualify that rockism isn't necessarily bad - Ashlee's probing and restless braniacity is also to some extent her "rockism", although there's perhaps a separate "rockism" at work in the way in which that is recognised by almost no rock critics.

It is a silly term though, and I've probably written more about what I think it means that just about anyone on ILX (It's a great term to debate though, because of the issues it attempts (and fails) to grasp and pull together - or at least this is what I say in order to justify the fact that I've probably written more about etc. etc.) - if I'm talking about bad rock criticism I'll usually just term it as such, and the big r-word usually only gets trotted out as a bit of a joke - e.g. '"Cool" is the least rockist song ever".

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:11 (seventeen years ago) link

Debates over PBS'ification and Rockism are exactly why I tune into Teenpop 2007 Thread, even though Teenpop is hardly my chosen favorite genre.

Anyway, Rockism always struck me as an idealogical argument, as opposed to a critical argument (if the two could be seperated). Which is to say, you could probably make a fair argument about anything being rockist or not being rockist - and that argument will probably tell you very little about the piece of art itself. When this guy says the influence of "Get Off Of My Cloud" is: "The latter, no doubt, included because a) it provides evidence of her historical depth, so to speak; b) it attracts that all important over 40—50? 60?—demographic; and c) it provides a handy readymade hook." He's making an argument about the legitimacy of the influence, but until point 'c' he's making absolutely no argument about the function of the influence - or the meaning of the influence - or even how the influence operates for real. ('b' pretends to be about how the influence operates, but it's either tongue-in-cheek or inaccurate. By comparison, my mother loves Avril and loves The Rolling Stones and dislikes 'Girlfriend.') Even point 'c' is a superficial argument - why does she need that readymade hook? Certainly Dr. Luke could've written a new hook. So it's an idealogical argument being made (about who has the rights to the music, and to the influence of music) and not a critical one (why this is happening now).

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:20 (seventeen years ago) link

I noticed I didn't say I was talking about "Girlfriend" until later in the paragraph. In case of confusion - sorry.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:21 (seventeen years ago) link

deeznuts, why would it be sarcasm?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:26 (seventeen years ago) link

Mordy, why call the ideological argument "rockism," as opposed to "guy being bigoted and lazy"? The argument seems to be "When Avril does it, it's commerce; when we do it, it's art" (or "When we do it, it's punk," etc.), which is an argument that people have employed for centuries, even though it's never been any good. The thing is, I doubt that the guy employs - or could employ - that argument with any consistency. The argument is entirely ad hoc, and doesn't add up to an ideology.

― Frank Kogan, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 22:36 (seventeen years ago) link

T-Shirt Slogan: "Pop is the moment prior to legitimation"

Which is not to say that all pop music is illegitimate, or that pop music is necessarily better when it is less legitimate, or that when we legitimise something it ceases to be pop.

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:25 (seventeen years ago) link

To put it another way: pop stages a suspension of legitimation which is, in a certain sense, violent, but, also, self-legitimising. It is impossible to speak of this violence without becoming complicit in its legitimation (but also: law-making, which is more interesting than simple legitimation-by-application-of-law).

Anti-pop critique (if we can call it that) consists of the denial that this suspension ever occurred, a denial that the chain of legitimation needs to be extended or worked upon. This is why a lot of the tautological dismissals of a given pop artefact often read like: "We have always already known precisely what this was."

― Tim F, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 23:52 (seventeen years ago) link

pop stages a suspension of legitimation which is, in a certain sense, violent, but, also, self-legitimising.

Not necessarily...if you're defining it like this, any kind of music could function as "pop" -- rock can precede "legitimized rock" (which also raises the question "legitimized by whom," since "pop" is different if we're talking about Popjustice's or Paste's audience) while being self-legitimizing, if I understand you correctly. So Lester bangs can write about Count Five and the Troggs in a way that are "self-legitimizing" where Bangs = self, and then legitimized in the people subsequently influenced by 'em (and their audience). (Unless I'm misreading you, which I very well might be.)

― dabug, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:02 (seventeen years ago) link

Part of that didn't make sense...what I mean is Bangs talking about the Troggs suggests they're a "self-legitimizing" band, i.e. they're legitimate 'cuz I think they're legitimate. And then the followers become Legitimate (and so do the Troggs).

― dabug, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Speaking as “the guy” Mordecai refers to, I want to mention that all three comments I make about “Cloud” are, to a certain extent, tongue in cheek. a) I say “so to speak” because history is essentially a non-issue when discussing pop music; pop, at least the last 40 years of it, is, for better or worse, an overwhelming and inescapable present. b) This is most definitely tongue in cheek, but to suggest that these sorts of considerations don't apply in pop music is either naive or placing Lavigne on too high of a pedestal. c) this is not an idealogical argument; I have nothing against Lavigne stealing the hook, and she has no less of a legitimate claim to it than the Stones (who may well have lifted it from another source I don't know about). My main point was that some people might actually infer that Lavigne's music had greater legitimacy because she lifted from the Stones and not some more recent, pop-identified, source. To me, stealing from the Stones, or anyone else, is meaningless, but I suspected that it might mean something to others. So, if anything, I was being pre-emptive (or critically paranoid). And for those who don't follow the link (and thanks for that, Mordecai—just like publicity, there are no bad links), I do criticize the music on its own terms, which I find great at first, but too busy and muddled by the end.

Frank: Lazy sometimes, yes, but never bigoted.

Tim: I think that should go “Pop is the moment before assimilation”. All art is legitimate, no matter where it is in the cultural stream.

― AKA Mr. Jaq, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 00:38 (seventeen years ago) link

because she lifted from the Stones and not some more recent, pop-identified, source

C'mon, now, at least glance at what we said upthread that links Avril's new one to about a bajillion sources from all over the past 40 years of pop history from the Stones to Skye Sweetnam (and beyond both those ref points).

― dabug, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 01:29 (seventeen years ago) link

I wasn't suggesting it was the only lift in the song (I mention a couple of others in the review). But I'm an old guy (part of that 40+ demographic), and that was the hook that really jumped out at me.

― AKA Mr. Jaq, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 01:47 (seventeen years ago) link

Actually, now that I'm reading what you wrote (er, sorry), I'm interested to know whether or not people think that "Girlfriend" somehow legitimizes Avril. The dumbo blog Idolator linked to when they linked "Girlfriend" to Kay Hanley-fronted Josie and the Pussycats said:

The new album is heavy on the addictive rockers and rather light on the treacly ballads that marred her past efforts critically, but can probably be attributed with her phenomenal sales record. So the biggest difference is that she's produced an album that has nine guilty pleasures for the Stereogum crowd instead of the usual single and a half that made their way on to previous albums.

Aside from this being generally idiotic, it's suggesting from a sort of outsider position that the new sound/single is about perceived legitmacy to an audience she doesn't usually connect with. It sorta relates to what Tim said about Hilary and Mandy essentially doing the same thing in the inverse way (and I'd argue Avril's also doing the same thing in a different way)...making a blatant legit status-move. This also (sort of) explains why Avril is so insistent and overbearing with FUN. Just as Hilary is insistent and goofy about CLASS, both are trying something that doesn't quite fit them...but for what or whom, exactly? Legitimacy? Dignity? Fun?

― dabug, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:05 (seventeen years ago) link

Do I dare bring up as hackneyed a term as "empowerment" (FUN being as empowering as CLASS)? Age probably has something to do with it, too, and the desire to break out of what's perceived as a manufactured teenpop mold. The obvious model is Kelly Clarkson, who moved from the epitome of manufactured pop to something far more personal (even though I think her records are overdone) in record time. In some ways, I bet Avril is kicking herself for giving Clarkson "Breakaway". But "Since You Been Gone" is the stronger model, a total break from how Clarkson was perceived, and far more inspiring, if only because it seems more real, than the simplistic "Breakaway".

― AKA Mr. Jaq, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 02:30 (seventeen years ago) link

why wouldnt it, mordechai??

i have many teenpop friends but i dont feel the need or see the reason to refer to them as 'braniacs' to legitimize the relationship.

btw im only using the word 'legitimize' because im under the impression using some form of it is a requirement for any post on this thread.

― deeznuts, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 03:28 (seventeen years ago) link

Because Frank didn't use it in a way that suggested sarcasm or irony. He's describing Simpson as a braniac in-good-faith that he believes that to be true. If you're willing to concede that some musicians deserve being called braniacs (maybe you don't - maybe you think that adjective should never be applied to any artist), why not Simpson?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:11 (seventeen years ago) link

there are some artists (& extraordinaly few musicians) i would describe as 'braniacs', but these are very rare. and if i went into why not i would feel like a complete tool, to be honest. so lets start with the simpler & unanswered 'WHY?' & bounce off of that.

legitimitely.

― deeznuts, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:25 (seventeen years ago) link

You're asking why Frank considers Simpson a braniac. I can't answer why she is one, but I can offer some possibilities why he believes that. First, start with his post here: March 19, 2007 1:49 PM. And then go to the 2006 Teenpop thread, and *Find* all the comments on Simpson, particularly the lyrical analysis that happened around 2/3rds through the year. The question about why Frank likes Ashley has become cliched in-of-itself, so some research is in order before reviving it. And finally, if you're looking for insight, here's a quote from Frank's myspace, which I imagine you could've turned up with some research (also, one of my favorite things I've read of Frank's): "Here is something I wrote to John Wójtowicz several months ago, while working on my Marit Larsen review. Obviously, I'm identifying hard with teenpop in that just as I don't see a path for them into the future, I don't see a path for myself either - which isn't to say that there's no future for me, or for them, but my path isn't given, my way isn't clear, so we're going to have to invent one."

And - uh - sorry, Frank, if posting this is stepping on any toes. Just figure I've been following this conversation long enough to step in.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:32 (seventeen years ago) link

i appreciate it mordecai & ill try to look into at least some of that stuff, im not trying to beat a dead horse, im far from a regular here. i just think sincerely calling people like ashlee simpson 'braniacs' is hyperbolic enough to undermine whatever credibility uh i mean legitimacy youre trying to establish for your argument.

― deeznuts, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 04:53 (seventeen years ago) link

Sorry deeznuts I'm gonna use that word again.

'Tim: I think that should go “Pop is the moment before assimilation”. All art is legitimate, no matter where it is in the cultural stream."

I dunno, "all art is legitimate" sounds like a position rather than something which is an a priori objective given - in fact "all art is legitimate" is in itself a legitimising statement. It also assumes that we all agree on what "art" is, and that it automatically applies to (subsumes, even) pop - "all art is legitimate" in this context is in itself an assimilation of pop to art.

But what I'm interested in is not the formal (empty) legitimacy implied by "all art is legitimate", but substantive social legitimacy, and the process of adjudication which considers pop (or whatever) to be worthy of the formal legitimacy you have granted it. Legitimisation is always performed, even if the conclusion is foregone.

"Not necessarily...if you're defining it like this, any kind of music could function as "pop" -- rock can precede "legitimized rock" ........
.........(Unless I'm misreading you, which I very well might be.)"

No I think this is right, I'm using pop more as a kind of regulative ideal than as a genre per se, albeit one which can be stood in for by real life pop-content at particular moments.

― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 05:52 (seventeen years ago) link

Tim, it seems to me what you're doing is taking the social word "legitimate" which you may or may not agree with, and asking when "society" starts to apply this meaningful/meaningless word to a particular genre/artist/song. Which seems like an empty question to me - because if you're asking: when does a genre/artist/song become socially legitimate. But you aren't giving the conditions of legitimacy. (Unless you gave a definition earlier and I missed it? Or are we just using the PBS definition?)

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 05:58 (seventeen years ago) link

I don't think there are "conditions of legitimacy" in some coherent, definitionally contained sense, else "rockism" would be much easier to talk about.

Frank's point upthread:

"Also, it seems to me that rock and other forms of popular culture are remarkably good at not achieving consensus at what counts as legitimate, not to mention distrusting legitimacy and making the word "legitimate" something of an insult."

― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:04 (seventeen years ago) link

I mean, a genre/artist/song will generally become socially legitimate straightaway for the person who likes it and is willing to go into bat for it (we might have to detour here to work out where we stand on the "guilty pleasure" - "I like this but I don't think it's legitimate").

I guess what I'm referring to therefore is more of a phenomenological experience of legitimacy, which is to say, when we immediately perceive a given piece of music, do we perceive it as legitimate or not, and why/why not? Are we doing so in in accordance with a pre-established rule or do we have to come up with a new rule of legitimation to explain what the music has done? (which is why AKA Mr. Jaq's suggestion of "assimilation" is pertinent)

― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:12 (seventeen years ago) link

Are we doing so in in accordance with a pre-established rule or do we have to come up with a new rule of legitimation to explain what the music has done?

Assuming it's the second thing - that we make up the rules as we go along - doesn't that place us in a tricky spot? After all, we're redefining an otherwise meaningless word just so we can use it. (ie: Avril Lavigne is legitimate because she... has intelligent things to say about young male-female relationships. So that's what legitimate means. But when I'm talking about Frank Sinatra, it means something completely different. So we're playing language games just so we can keep the word around.) So even if you say it's the second thing, you still need to explain why we want that word so badly. I imagine it's because even with the second thing (redefining), we still leave "legitimacy" will a primary definition. Something like: Because Avril has these important comments that also means that it is valuable and productive to listen to her. Or, because the Clash has passionate political points that also means it is valuable and productive to listen to them. Essentially, it needs to point back to your first option - some essential rule by which we're designing the other rules.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:24 (seventeen years ago) link

we still leave "legitmacy" with* a primary definition. ie: it's still a loaded word.

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:25 (seventeen years ago) link

I guess what I'm referring to therefore is more of a phenomenological experience of legitimacy,

Also, I'm not quite sure what this means. I've never had an experience of legitimacy when confronted by a piece of art. I've never heard anything completely out of context and thought: Wow! Legitimate! I've thought, wow, beautiful! So maybe that's why I'm having trouble relating to the word as something phenomenological. Re: Heidegger, can one be legitimate? Which is to say, can one act in a way in which they're being legitimate? And if they can, is that related to being 'authentic'?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:31 (seventeen years ago) link

x-post - Yes exactly - I should have noted that I don't really believe the opposition "apply old rule"/"make new rule" works in this case - it's more like a chain of articulations in which every rule is an interpretation of prior ones.

In a lot of ways "legitimacy" (which may not be the word used, but other words will stand in for it - "real" for example) is loaded because it has to do all the heavy lifting thought-wise (e.g. the strawman listener who dismisses Ashlee because she's not a 'real' rocker and then goes no further - emphasis here intended to point to what I think is really problematic about this position).

So for me perhaps good criticism, and criticism which is conducive to pop music (pop in the regulative ideal sense), is about trying to shoulder as much of the load as possible, to do the heavy thinking that would otherwise be achieved simply by standing on the shoulders of prior articulations of legitimacy.

― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:33 (seventeen years ago) link

"I've never had an experience of legitimacy when confronted by a piece of art."

What about an experience of il-legitimacy though? I'm thinking (again resorting to strawmen) of the parent who claims that their kid is just listening to noisy trash, or repetitive beats over and over. You're right that we normally don't register every piece of music or art or etc. as "legitimate", any more than we think "hey, i'm acting in accordance with the law" when we follow traffic rules. It's more where this legitimacy is called into question that we suddenly experience it, if only obliquely.

― Tim F, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:36 (seventeen years ago) link

Ok, let's say you're listening to MC Hammer in 1990. And you think: This seems off. So you're having some experience of his illegitimacy. Maybe you think: this guy looks ridiculous and he's doing something that seems imitative of what we consider legitimate hip-hop. So that's one kind of illegitimacy. Then you find out that he's a phony - he lied about his background and said it was poor when really he's from a wealthy family. Now he has a different kind of illegitimacy. A legitimate artist wouldn't lie about his background (maybe), so he's illegitimate in terms of that legitimacy too.

So considering this, are you saying both illegitimacies are linked? That you have the same (oblique) phenomenological reaction to either? Or are they so different (one is not staying true to a genre convention, the other is falsely representing yourself) that legitimacy is just a handy word to describe a lot of basically unrelated things?

― Mordechai Shinefield, Wednesday, 18 April 2007 06:42 (seventeen years ago) link

Skipping 2225 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.