Simon Reynolds - C or D

Eventually, most of them end up being cheap... I'll let you know my viees on RIUASA when it ends up being cheap

interesting -- if the art-schooled daughter of a northern irish terror outfit (either side) made an lp named after her father and adopted light terra-chic outfits/occasional lyrics, i think 'authenticity' (not in terms of roots, which is the wrong way to go) would be a viable object of study.

is it cool? has she thought about all this? that kind of thing. sri lanka is far away, so MIA had an easier ride of it.

"many white critics dont know what to make of MIA, its too much for them to take on."

hahaha, "power move" as grimey simey would say. absolute horseshit -- although i don't recall anyone saying at the time that sri lankan critics should have the final say on this.

spencer, why did you think it would have been 'consistent' for reynolds to have liked MIA?

xpost -- honestly, you don't need RIUASA

i don't think he said this, or not constantly, one book at least had him saying 'use this fucker, i don't own it, dn-suh-dn-duh i'm just a war machine' or something.

Tim, thanks for the further info on your critique. I should note that I never checked out Piracy Funds Terrorism before Arular was released - so for me the album itself was a complete rush on its own. I find "URAQT" to be basically annoying (and I love Sanford & Son!).

As for Reynolds, reading his earlier stuff I felt like he was coming to this fantastic music and then making connections with theory and history in order to add further significance to the music and the genre. I read and reread Blissed Out again and again and sent the Feminine Pressure link to every smart person I knew.

Now, I feel like he's placing new music into his own highly developed theory/map-of-music which acts as a barrier to his 'pure' enjoyment of the 'sounds' (which I'm wondering if his nu-rockism is challenging - I've never assumed 'sound' enjoyment to be completely apolitical, but it's at least an attempt at getting past a lot of rockist nonsense).

I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but I suppose it's just an annoyance with all the pop critics who could not 'just' hear a fantastic pop/dance production a la Richard X or Basement Jaxx with taunting girl chants on top.

I will be watching critical reactions to Lady Sovereign's "Hoodie" and eventual album very closely because anybody I've played it for here in the US instantly says "Oooh, is this the new MIA??" They seem to both be "AT" the same place, but I wonder if certain critics will like her more because they're more comfortable with where she's "FROM."

to 'just' hear this you need to blank out all of the other stuff. obviously hip-hop fans are used to this, but it remains a thorny issue.

This makes me think that SR's judgement is silly.

Thanks for your valuable input. I happen to be a proud Dissensian and a MIA fan. Try thinking before posting.

pf -- i think an article he wrote on the stone roses back in 'the day' included the quote 'it's not where you're from it's where you're at', as voiced by ian brown but original from eric b and rakim c. 1987. somehow when he saw it, he thought the t-shirt was referencing ian brown -- which maybe in new york would give this anglo a rush? especially since the reversal for some reason meant something to reynolds, who has long had an interest in the concept of authenticity.

MIA's lyrics seem to be an abstract pastiche patois of urban,third-world,terroism-chic etc. I think they're in fact too vague to really criticize as harshly as so many have.

who has long had an interest in the concept of authenticity.

I'm very willing to believe this now, but it's never really struck me before. Is there something specific from one of his books?

It's not where you're from, it's where you live.

Current whereabouts takes precedence over origins.

Let me guess, YSI thread?

I don't think it's a comparison thing--just that a lot of Americans (in my experience at least) seem unable to distinguish the one voice from the other

Try to to keep your tongue away from Reynolds' nutsack. Thanks for posting. LOL@you calling yourself a proud dissensian and not realising how pitiful such an admission is.

because hes not just an authority on music but race as well! he knows everything!

DO TEHY MEAN ME? THEY SURELY DO!!!

LOOK LOOK ILM CALM IT DOWN I BE RUNNIN' TINGS AT DISSENSUS ALL IS IREIE AND GOOD WITYHMY MAN WOEBOT HE IS RUNNIN TINGS I THINK WE IS COMPO TO YOUR PROVERBIAL CLEGGS AND FOGGYS LOL LOL LOL THATS HOW WE BE RUNNIN' THATS HOW WE BE RUNNIN TINGS

I'M A MAN OF PECAE I GOT NO BEEF WITH NONE A YA PLAYA HATAZ LOL WE SHOULD ALL GO SEE BONKERS SOON THAT 'D BE GOOD BROTHERS BE SLAMMIN IT DOWN! MIA'S ALRIGHT BUT SHE'S NO JULIANA HATFILED THATS A FACT THATS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE DENIED LOL LOL BIGGING UP TO KATIE M

LOL

CHECK OUT THE KOOKS THEY ROCK!!!

PEACE

Yeah I reckon Feminine Principle is probably the absolute pinnacle of mid-era (pre-nu-rockist) Simon's work.

"Now, I feel like he's placing new music into his own highly developed theory/map-of-music which acts as a barrier to his 'pure' enjoyment of the 'sounds'."

Simon responded directly to this charge (I kinda implied it on a Dissensus thread) by saying that he was merely attempting to explain his own reactions - any map-of-music tendencies are simply attempts to diagnose and theorise the patterns in his reactions. I'm inclined to accept this and assume that Simon's inability to flat-out adore M.I.A. is a "real" reaction (i.e. a matter of base level perception/enjoyment) - it's not inconceivable that some people might be left wanting more from Arular, for whatever reason.

The bigger danger in this regard is not so much distorting/subverting the path of one's own enjoyment, but rather proceeding too quickly from one's own experiences to some grand theory-of-everything that doesn't allow for the multiplicity and ambiguity of effects that music can have.

Of course Simon (and Matt Woebot and Mark K-Punk) muddied the waters a bit by using the M.I.A. debate as a launchpad for an attack on popists who will risk everything to protect their own enjoyment. But I really think this argument is ultimately a red herring, used for strategic purposes more than anything else: none of the three Dissensus heavyweights ever propose to seriously question their own enjoyment (or lack thereof in some instances), so they in effect place themselves outside of their own critical programme.

When one of them finally and openly says "I love this piece of music but objectively speaking I shouldn't and therefore won't love it any longer", we will know that they take their own nu-rockist anti-enjoyment crusade seriously.

the ancient baltimore club track that they sample in the mia tune (called "you big dummy") is better though.

Yes, that's a big part of the problem, isn't it? If there's a beef I have it'd be with things like this--less the actual ideas (we can always argue about ideas) but more the methods. Taking up the odious "everyone does this but us" technique. Taking up the "I will take one small detail from your argument and focus on that, ignoring all the parts that I cannot actually argue with" technique. The "I am seemingly being cordial but actually being a total cunt" technique. Basically, all the bad parts of arguing on teh int3ernets, but applied to arguing about theory. It makes me feel dirty, like we're having a Kirk v. Piccard flame-war, and that's exactly what I never wanted this to become.

Of course, I also never wanted to write tortuous sentences like the above. Can't always get what you want.