Simon Reynolds

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1473 of them)

bottom line is does "more important to me" sell?

― acrobat, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:39 (nineteen years ago)

I tend to avoid relying on some sort of subjective priority in this area. It's not so much that Alice Walker is "more important to me", it's more that the question of "importance..." always implies a "...to whom?" and "...for what purpose?", which totalising statements to the effect of "the pre-eminence of shakespeare is beyond discussion" or "the worthlessness of paris hilton is beyond discussion" only seek to close down. The precise point is that the importance of Walker vis a vis Shakespeare is something that needs to be worked through in argument in order to come to a conclusion.

The funny thing is that Bloom is kinda right and inspiring in a lot of what he says about the greatness of Shakespeare, but it's only because the School of Resentment have been outrageous enough to take a different slant that he's been prodded into being so clever and creative and insightful. FWIW Bloom goes well beyond talking about "meatspace traction" and basically credits Shakespeare with the creation of psyche and personality.

I should note that not all arguments are necessarily worth having, but the worth of an argument doesn't come down to what is being discussed (paris, mia, shakespeare) but the nature and the form of the argument itself. As Tom noted, the arguments about mia were interesting regardless of what one thought of the music.

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:40 (nineteen years ago)

You know, people are going to do exactly the same thing when the K-Fed record comes out.

It already came out and it sucks. One reason I didn't like it was that K-Fed was rapping about his wealth, and how you should be jealous of him because of his social position. Paris doesn't do this (on her record).

See, that's the thing...Paris's album changed my perception of her (K-Fed's album didn't make me think that, say, he wasn't a big idiot). It was only after listening to her music that I bothered to even try to articulate what kind of political/gender/economic issues I had with her (maybe, tho I wasn't losing sleep over it) before...and I couldn't articulate them, really, they were vague generalities having to do with mutant capitalism etc. etc. (so why not put my energies toward the people who MAKE these policies instead of ambiguously representing them?) And I also noticed that other people couldn't articulate their positions, though they obviously felt strongly about them. And that they were ignoring (or, in the case of most reviewers, saying stupid things about) not just Paris but about a type, about a system of creation/production that Paris somehow typified.

(wow, xxxxxxxxpost)

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:42 (nineteen years ago)

"the obvious irony is that foucault's boring anti-historical notion of the archive/library is as entrenched in the academy now as whatever it was trying to upset. go to a postgrad seminar anywhere and the same second-hand tat is still being chucked around three decades on. "

Not that surprising. Literary humanism was around for a lot longer! But it's not like, Bloom aside, the pro-canon side have come up with any meaningful response since then. Unless you count snide obituaries every time a continental philosophy dies.

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

That should be, every time a continental philosopher dies.

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:43 (nineteen years ago)

"I should note that not all arguments are necessarily worth having, but the worth of an argument doesn't come down to what is being discussed (paris, mia, shakespeare) but the nature and the form of the argument itself."

you're noting that? i think you're just saying it, tim. i don't buy it. it makes sense on a messageboard, but nothing is at stake here.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

How about having no "arguments" and just listening to and enjoying music, whatever your poison, or is that too pat a "conclusion"?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:45 (nineteen years ago)

just listening to and enjoying music

What kind of listening can avoid value judgments being made? It's not so much pat as it is impossible.

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:47 (nineteen years ago)

I'm talking about arguments about the relative worth of cultural products - if the argument is worth having it's first and foremost because the argument will actually tell us something rather than because of something intrinsic to the products... however, the likelihood of the argument telling us something may stem from the nature of the products themselves.

The real life thing I'm thinking of here is the old bugbear re "grad students writing theses deconstructing buffy". Like crabby old conservatives I actually find it difficult to take these particularly seriously, but my issue is not so much with buffy per se, but my skepticism that the thesis will end up saying anything illuminating - its the practice of critique which is flawed rather than the object of critique.

Marcello, you of all people surely understand the value of arguments!

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:49 (nineteen years ago)

yeah i agree with that re. buffy -- but partly coz the university system is more ummm politically important than the internets. everything comes down to funding -- i mean sure if people want to self-fund the typical 'angel as read through x-continental philospher' then that's great for them, but they may as well just come to ilx and do it for free for all the use it'll be.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 15:57 (nineteen years ago)

"enjoying music" of course being a "value judgment"

you mean there has to be a "use"?

― Marcello Carlin, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:00 (nineteen years ago)

criticising continental philosophy =/ conservative per-se. i'm not sure anyone's saying that it does explicitly but y know it kinda needs to be noted.

aren't kpunk and reynold's crit-theory to the max thou? they read their fave music through certain philosophies right?

― acrobat, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

"enjoying music" of course being a "value judgment"

I guess I just mean that once you try to analyze that enjoyment (or lack thereof) you're making an argument. (And with Paris, I'm not really interested in whether or not people do enjoy it, but whether or not they feel they should enjoy it.)

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

All the culture of resentment arguments are ripped from Nietzsche. I think the 'resentiment' spelling comes from the fact that Nietzsche used the French word untranslated in his writing. N argues that egalitarianism implies a levelling of distinction (from Christianity i.e. we are all equal in the eyes of God) whereas hierarchies are essential for life (a truth we have forgotten). Someone like k-punk sees being pro-pop as refusing to accept that there are distinctions of value. This is why he and Simon can never hear the fact that pop-ists aren't against distinction (i.e. no-one ever argues 'everything is good' or 'everything popular is good'). Whereas I think it's fairer to say that the argument N. is really against is the one that says 'it doesn't matter what I like, it's only an opinion and everyone's opinions are equal'.

I find this interesting because in some ways the pro-pop arguments are like the admirable sides of the Christian / egalitarian tendency. If distinctions and hierarchies are essential to life, refusing them or questioning them (asking: is Paris Hilton's record art or not?)threatens life. Culture in the Western tradition defines itself as superseding that which is necessary for the survival of life, so the pop-ist position is at least exploring the possibility of culture, whereas simply being in favour of hierarchies (Paris Hilton's record obviously isn't art) is bowing to necessity.

If pop-ism and culture / egalitarianism are linked, we also have to factor in commodoties. In the Genealogy of Morality, morality is seen as arising out of economy and exchange: everyone is equal as a possible buyer or seller (I'm remembering this from a few years ago so I may be getting this wrong!). This need not undermine our idea of morality, just lead us to see it as itself a natural process (and therefore not as 'cultured' as it claims to be in e.g. Kant, basically N is here playing a sociological account vs. an idealist one). But on this account pro-pop would mean accepting that everything is already a commodity, so the interesting questions is no longer commodity art vs. non-commodity art. As someone says upthread, SR still believes in the aesthetic account of art as redemption from the fallen commercial world.

― byebyepride, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:09 (nineteen years ago)

this is a bit ill thought out. k-punk quotes N. against pop-ist arguments, and I am currently re-reading Beyond Good and Evil to try and think this one through.

― byebyepride, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:11 (nineteen years ago)

schooled.

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

reynolds read critical theory as a boy; but it's where k-punk eats.

marcello -- yeah there does a bit when it's publicly funded, coz you're talking about funding useful stuff vs funding useless stuff. obviously there's a whole 'but aaaaaaaaah, who's to say what's "useful"?' argument to be had but unless they do it by lottery *some* criteria of *some* kind are being applied, some value system is coming into play; it's just a question of whose.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

it's just a question of whose

Yeah it strikes me that the one anti-'popism' argument I *do* think has some weight is the chastisement of 'popists' seeming lack of interest in the mechanics of what music gets selected, marketed, promoted, and by who. (Obviously people who are critical of "commodity music" only explore this element very very selectively themselves).

― Groke, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

i dont know, that argument (the mechanics one) is the only one i ever really hear. and its a good argument. i dont think its quite as straightforward as that, other than that its a push/pull process. people who make decisions are a lot better at listening and watching than they used to be..

― frankie driscoll, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

why do you think the anti-commodity music is only explored selectively (are you suggesting its the old 'the masses cant see but i can' argument - inability to apply to own situation?)

― frankie driscoll, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

I think they only explore it selectively because they aren't interested in the mechanics of promotion/marketing/distribution in the music they like, only the music they disapprove of. It's not an inability to apply it to their own situation, it's just they think the mechanics are more relevant when applied to music they see as 'pure' commodity.

― Groke, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:47 (nineteen years ago)

Tom, it's not just the selection and promotion of the music, but the popstars themselves as well surely*? The dismissal of the 'would Artetha Franklin get signed now?' argument has always bothered me somewhat.

*Unless you're implying that already

― Matt DC, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

one anti-'popism' argument I *do* think has some weight is the chastisement of 'popists' seeming lack of interest in the mechanics of what music gets selected, marketed, promoted, and by who.

These are major issues for me, but I'm also interested in (1) how non-existent systems are put in place to make arguments easier for dismissal of "popist" music when, to grapple with the systems as they exist, you have to deal with plenty of music that, e.g. SR does champion, (2) the artist emphasis and institutional emphasis are often unrelated (loving Britney's music and hating the corporate environment in which her career was made possible is absolutely possible), and often institutions work to screw over artists stuck within them (e.g. Skye Sweetnam, Fefe Dobson, Lillix...countless others and that's just the teenpop thread), who are then held personally culpable for their failure, just as they're held personally culpable for how they're marketed and received, (3) The popist/poptimists I know are always looking anywhere they can for exciting music -- sometimes it gets promoted via radio monopolies etc., sometimes it comes from MySpace. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference.

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah it strikes me that the one anti-'popism' argument I *do* think has some weight is the chastisement of 'popists' seeming lack of interest in the mechanics of what music gets selected, marketed, promoted, and by who.

When I self-identify as pop-ist (which I do sometimes) I want to chastise other people who self-identify as pro-pop for this, because it's largely what I complain about anti-pop people doing as well. i.e. everyone wants to be blind to the mechanisms of selection and sorting because it means confessing to what structures (NB: NOT determines) their own choices. But both sides are also quite resistant to talking about what structures their ways of talking about music too.

Dom upstairs somewheres identifies pop-ism with professing to liking pop: for me it means a way of thinking about whatever you like, rather than a particular thing you like, and I tend to get irritated by people who self-identify as 'liking pop'. As I ranted about last week elsewhere, the idea that 'I can like this and that and it doesn't matter what it's called' seems to me being in denial about the social dimensions of the music, which aren't added in later but are there as an intrinsic part of whatever it is we're listening to. i.e. I am not imposing something on to a piece of music when I hear it as positioning itself socially, but responding to something their way of listening blocks out. Obviously I don't do this ALL THE TIME. That way madness lies.

― byebyepride, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

The "culpable for their failure" bit was actually more in reference to an artist like Paris or Lindsay Lohan than someone like Skye or Lillix or Fefe, who never really got much of a chance. Paris's album was marketed horribly, aside from everyone hating her in the first place. But she is the one who seems to have failed.

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

Actually thinking about it, people do explore the mechanics of other musics quite a lot - the recordmaking and distribution of reggae records in Jamaica, for example, forms a big part of the way that story is told. But that kind of viciously competitive entrepreneurialism is glamorised, it's part of the excitement of the story, in a way that viciously competitive business activity by major labels isn't (not that I'm saying it should be).

xpost Matt sorry wasn't meaning to exclude the Aretha argument - that's totally part of it.

― Groke, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

"how non-existent systems are put in place to make arguments easier for dismissal of "popist" music when, to grapple with the systems as they exist, you have to deal with plenty of music that, e.g. SR does champion"

we must vanquish these non-existent systems post-haste!

Actually thinking about it, people do explore the mechanics of other musics quite a lot - the recordmaking and distribution of reggae records in Jamaica, for example, forms a big part of the way that story is told. But that kind of viciously competitive entrepreneurialism is glamorised, it's part of the excitement of the story, in a way that viciously competitive business activity by major labels isn't (not that I'm saying it should be).

yeah this is a vg point: the model for dubplate/white label culture is quite 'devil take the hindmost' 80s capitalist.

but the major labels are great lumbering monopolist dinosaurs, they take a lot of hits! they are more vicious now, but it's still a failing model.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

Reynolds is wrong though, because the poppist approach to music criticism is manifestly *not* about pure appreciation of music. In fact, I can't think of any other critical approach that places less emphasis on how much the listener is actually enjoying the music they listen to. Popism revolves around a weird outdated sense of being challenging, it's more concerned with *not* liking the music it *doesn't* like, rather than enjoying the music it does

This is a failure of popism, then. I do sense this streak of wanting to be subversive in many of the Lex's defenses of pop starlets, and I recognize it, because I've been known to deliberately gush about Justin Timberlake in front of people who I know sniff their noses at anything on commercial radio. But as a critical approach, popism (or at least anti-rockism) has also allowed me to ignore questions of social cred or whatever and just focus on a song's sonic elements and the degree to which said elements produce pleasure.

I agree with Reynolds that this approach is also limiting, but it's not because it ignores "what's really important" -- it's mostly because writing from that perspective isn't always very interesting and runs the risk of getting bogged down in either arcane music theory or solipsism.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 16:57 (nineteen years ago)

Yes but this is the odd thing: the big labels are presented as wicked controllers of the music system who offer our kids only pabulum AND as rank failing incompetents. You can be both I guess but it's a bit of a tightrope.

I can think of two long-term marketing triumphs for the record industry. The former possibly accidental (but probably not), the latter definitely on purpose. First is the promotion of the album as a format and the repackaging of popular music as non-disposable. Second (linked to the first) is the promotion and success of the CD format as a way to buy old music as well as new.

― Groke, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:02 (nineteen years ago)

the chastisement of 'popists' seeming lack of interest in the mechanics of what music gets selected, marketed, promoted, and by who. (Obviously people who are critical of "commodity music" only explore this element very very selectively themselves).

Yes this nails it really, but the selectivity (hypccracy even) of the people making the critisisms doesn't excuse the exasperation about the lack of interest. Perhaps it is because in pop the mechanics are more hidden and thus more interesting.

Tom was it in discussion with you on an ILM thread long ago that I speculated about the people behind some early Will Young (or Gareth Gates?) songs and various Scandanivian pop factories? I'm sure there are lots of interesting (to me) stuff to be said about this phenomenon, even if it is rockist to consider their influences, motivations etc.

What is the selectivity you consider people critical of commodity music exhibit? (and I guess I am often critical of it myself)

― Sandy Blair, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:05 (nineteen years ago)

you have a similar-ish thing in movies: non-hollywood product isn't half as scrutinized as studio filmmaking -- though even then the real juicy details (cf the recent 'sahara' revelations) are kept secret. but you know, "how much does juliette binoche get paid?" never comes up, while it does for jim carrey or whoever.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:09 (nineteen years ago)

we must vanquish these non-existent systems post-haste!

Uh, not sure if it was clear that I mean that people are just guessing at what systems they think produces the music they're discounting, and creating stupid myths instead of making a cogent argument (best example of this is probably Before the Music Dies, the argument of which seems to be that Ashlee Simpson's fans are all stupid). I actually think a poptimist type is more likely to seek actual information about how the music is produced than non- (knowing the producers, the labels, the marketing systems)...it's what they then do with this knowledge, or what importance they put in it, that makes the difference. But if there are people who celebrate the corporate/institutional model rather than grudgingly accept it, I haven't met them.

ignore questions of social cred or whatever and just focus on a song's sonic elements

But you can do both! And (again) that's what's so great about Paris, she's the pop star that puts the person focusing solely on sonic elements in the position of unavoidably thinking about questions of social judgment etc. even when they don't want to...this sort of general feeling that just enjoying the song isn't enough.

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:14 (nineteen years ago)

what she seems to have done is provoked people who don't care a fig about questions of "social judgment" -- to whit, she is a smelly rich racist -- to say LALALA WHO CARES WHEN SHE HAS THESE AWESOME TUNES?!?! just to get a rise out of us sane folk. my god, if it were possible to enjoy the song then she'd slip through the net the same way other hard-to-like performing artistes do. if that makes her great then kudos!

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

people who don't care a fig about questions of "social judgment" -- to whit, she is a smelly rich racist -- to say LALALA WHO CARES WHEN SHE HAS THESE AWESOME TUNES?!?!

Names, plz.

― dabug, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:19 (nineteen years ago)

you can celebrate elements of the corporate model (ie sometimes - SOMETIMES - i would trust the record company above the artist in selecting singles, songs for the album, finished mixes and so on) while disapproving of other elements of it (which i rarely do out loud because every other fucker goes on about these bits all the time innit)

― lex pretend, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:21 (nineteen years ago)

"Names, plz.

-- dabug, Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:19 PM (5 minutes ago)"

um the lex?

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

oh for god's sake nrq this has been explained countless times, if you only decided you could like art by morally unimpeachable characters you would find yourself unable to like 99% of it - admittedly this is how you do come across but as ciara said to me "i choose to enjoy life"

― lex pretend, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:25 (nineteen years ago)

she's smelly?

― blueski, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

"And (again) that's what's so great about Paris, she's the pop star that puts the person focusing solely on sonic elements in the position of unavoidably thinking about questions of social judgment etc. even when they don't want to...this sort of general feeling that just enjoying the song isn't enough.

-- dabug, Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:14 PM (10 minutes ago)"

names plz of these people who are so up their arses they 'focus solely on somic elements'? what is this, bloomsbury circa 1912?

1% of all art is a ton, lex. but i said that if the music was good then people would let her slip through the way they do with other dickhead musicians. your thing wasn't to attempt that but to say she was actively lovely and good, and that's just mad.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:27 (nineteen years ago)

my thing was to praise both the music and the personality conveyed in the music, both of which are lovely. if real life paris isn't, the fact that she manages to convince as lovely in her songs surely makes her a better artist.

― lex pretend, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:30 (nineteen years ago)

HM, I wouldn't say that I "focus solely on sonic elements" but I do privilege them.

― jaymc, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

names plz of these people who are so up their arses they 'focus solely on sonic elements'?

*waves hello*

my thing was to praise both the music and the personality conveyed in the music, both of which are lovely.

since when was narcissism 'lovely' rather than nauseating?

― m the g, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

since 'Rapper's Delight'

― blueski, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

sorry. must have missed that meeting.

― m the g, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:36 (nineteen years ago)

since "Bo Diddley"

― Groke, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

"if real life paris isn't, the fact that she manages to convince as lovely in her songs surely makes her a better artist.

-- lex pretend, Thursday, April 19, 2007 8:30 PM (3 minutes ago)"

that's interesting. obv i disagree -- up to a point i think honesty and self-revelation aren't bad things in pop. that doesn't mean i only like leonard cohen and fiona apple or anything.

― That one guy that quit, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:37 (nineteen years ago)

i think honesty and self-revelation can be great in pop (i like leonard cohen AND fiona apple), i think the theatrical/performative side (intentional or not) can also be great. oddly i think both cohen and apple can fall more into the latter category.

the thing with perceived honesty and self-revelation is that...ultimately how do you know? how do you know that some random cat power song is FROM HER HEART or something she made up while feeling bored one day or something she wants to pretend she is or something she wishes she was? does it matter as long as she convinces (or if she makes it obvious she's acting, but in an appealing way) (or if she tries to convince but fails in an appealing way)?

and doesn't it depend on so many other factors? do you expect an artist to spill their emotional guts on stage every day of a tour? some nights they might be a bit too happy to be really honest singing a sad song - but if they're a good enough actor they'll still convince their audience.

― lex pretend, Thursday, 19 April 2007 17:51 (nineteen years ago)

well no shit lex, performers perform, news at 11

the thing is, EVERYTHING counts, every intra- AND extra-musical little bit of data is out there, hitting you, me, everyone, and it all interacts or gets sorted as people want it to, or even how they don't want it to.

it's not about puritanically not listening to people who don't fit some moral/political angelic model. it's that sometimes, certain bits of problem data loom larger or aren't excused by whatever positive bits there are. i'm sure there are other rich racists i've given my money to but in Paris' case the record (which didn't grab me with anywhere near the urgency has half a billion other things) came AFTER a huge cache of blisteringly negative information was already inescapable. So, sorry!

― gff, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:02 (nineteen years ago)

inconsistency is good

― gff, Thursday, 19 April 2007 18:05 (nineteen years ago)

"When I self-identify as pop-ist (which I do sometimes) I want to chastise other people who self-identify as pro-pop for this, because it's largely what I complain about anti-pop people doing as well. i.e. everyone wants to be blind to the mechanisms of selection and sorting because it means confessing to what structures (NB: NOT determines) their own choices. But both sides are also quite resistant to talking about what structures their ways of talking about music too. "

I always liked the neatness of k-punk's line about rockism vs popism being about "a romantics of production vs a romantics of reception".

I don't think he carries it through though: a "romantics of production" is really about reception, or more specifically the reception of production. So when a popist/anti-rockist insists that reception has to be the starting point, it might be due to a "romantics of reception" or it might be a more broader point that is epistemological rather than ontological: when we're talking about music, our understanding is always affected (infected) by our enjoyment. So to even hope of getting to the kind of structural, scientific diagnostic critical position in the Althusserian sense that k-punk seems to advocate, you sort of have to traverse your own enjoyment, work out as near as possible what it is that is structuring your own enjoyment, in terms of both production and reception (what is the music's baggage, what is my baggage), rather than assume (per Althusser) that you alone have uncovered the scientific formulation for divining the difference between 'mere' enjoyment and something more real. Of course, the awful truth is that you never get to that point, it's a point of infinite regress. This is why every critic is a popist, they just don't necessarily know it yet.

― Tim F, Thursday, 19 April 2007 22:36 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 1373 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.

Simon Reynolds - C or D