Simon Reynolds - C or D

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.

i followed that debate a little (a little k-punk goes a long way) and i don't know that this is a fair summary -- i mean which popists are 'risking everything' exactly? what does this even mean?

There are people on Dissensus whom I do enjoy reading and who do post interesting stuff, e.g. K-P, Stelfox, Derek W, Tim F (when he's on there), but otherwise it's a bit like the local Rotary Club with some pomo added.

there was a smudge on my computer monitor that made "some pomo added" look like "some porno added", thus quite drastically altering the meaning. anyway, carry on.

*smokes plastic kid's toy bubble pipe*

there are ways of doing things, of course: maybe the popists are reacting to the misplaced puritanism of political correctness. i think most ilm types are involved in some kind of complex negotiation when listening to homophobic/sexist lyrics though, and i think it's a lie (or just worrying!) to say 'oh i can just ignore all that'.

there's also obviously the possibility, esp with rap, dancehall etc, of listening primarily in terms of beats, production etc rather than the lyrics. this is how i naturally listen to much of aforementioned music, rather than because i'm privileging anything on ideological grounds.

equally, tho, it is posssible to some extent to ignore the cultural baggage surrounding a piece of music by not immediately discounting it in terms of the demographic that likes it. i'm sure i wouldn't much like the majority of girls aloud or 50 cent fans, but that's not going to stop me listening to the music with an open mind. this debate's been reduced by people insisting on absolutes, particularly in terms of the popist position.

i think marcello is otm, but haha yes very good 'blount move', 'life isn't like that etc etc', i'm not tuomas though, i know this stuff, but what can i say? oh, i know, i said COMPEX NEGOTIATION which i'm involved in too. you won't find any black eyed peas in my cd collection, but you will find ludacris and, yes, schoolly d.

i think i probably would like girls aloud's fans (not 50 cent's though).

i listen to music mostly for production and don't always trouble to figure out lyrics, but i still think this position, which spencer took, is a bit disingenuous.

the effect of this sly, self-legitimating move, in ilm terms, is to say that 'i can fully identify with ordinary working folk who like pop music for the simple reason that it sounds good but i dislike those who listen to rap music about the streets on a non-authentic basis'. it's back-door rockism masquerading as popism!

I didn't mean it in that way at all (the misreading is my fault not yours nrq I fear)! I meant that a large part of the nu-rockist critique of popists is the argument that for popists nothing is sacred (meaning, importance, consistency, authenticity, resonance etc. etc.) except some sort of shallow consumerist enjoyment. Hence the importance of the (empirically dubious) idea that M.I.A. fans celebrate M.I.A.'s political context and then, when questioned on this, the same M.I.A. fans say that this political context is irrelevant. i.e. the popist position is to have no position, to stand for nothing so as to fall for everything.

ie the popists have no position because authenticity is part and parcel of the whole MIA package.

there are very few people who boosted MIA for realness, iirc!

"there are very few people who boosted MIA for realness, iirc!"

You clearly never opened a newspaper or magazine ever!!!

only if you choose to take lyrics about rubicon and mangos with a straight ear, so to speak.

-- Tim Finney (tfinne...), October 7th, 2005.

this i have to concede!

(The only time I've really been baffled by anything SR has said recently was about 6 months back, either on Dissensus or his blog, I can't remember, when he said in essence, well yes I systematise things, by the time you're 30 you should know what you like, and I thought, god, I'm 30 and I know less about what I like or why I like it than EVER!)

(i.e. yes Ich Bin Ein Flake)

" i don't understand how it's really possible to listen in that contextless popist way, i don't even know if i want to! i think here reynolds at el were saying, 'how can you ignore all these issues when MIA herself foregrounds them'. "

I don't think anyone really does listen to music in that gross-simplification-of-popism way. But music always has a multiplicity of contexts, whose importance vis a vis one another will be reshuffled according to how they intersect. e.g. it's easier to ignore M.I.A.'s political side on the dancefloor than it is when looking at her artwork or reading an interview with her. I think one of the first steps towards a reasonable critical discussion is to acknowledge that we are likely to use (and therefor conceive of) the same piece of music in different ways.

Against the point you raise above, one could just as easily say, "i don't know how you can ignore M.I.A.'s great hooks and awesome grooves when she herself foregrounds them." But such statements only get us so far if we don't acknowledge that we'll all rank these things differently.

this is not a rhetorical question.

.

context changes a piece of music, but only up to a point, and you know if you've seen an interview with MIA and then hear her on the dancefloor, you've still read the interview...

The fact that neither abolishes the other is precisely the point. Actually the idea that the dancefloor abolishes everything else is something of a nu-rockist touchstone NRQ! Read that pop thread on dissensus!

"their ears are always good enough to detect the tinge of authenticity (even when they have no direct experience of the authenticating tableaux) and vice versa."

See yeah this is a big issue I have. If authenticity is basically referenced back to what your ears told you, isn't it, like, an inaccurate attempt to actually talk about something else entirely?

(x-post)

it's the classic romantic aspiration of being able to detect absolute, objective truth thru entirely subjective means. it's entirely oxymoronic, but obv very well established historically...

the idea that dancefloor abolishes all is a kind of foundational myth for dissensus as it allows 30something m-class, wannabe journalists to get down and dirty with real-life grime emcees and producers, thinking that their input is on the same-level collaborative, rather than patronising (in a kinda renaissance patron way of course)

Mark K-Punk reformulates this objectivity as something like (neurology X deleuze)/zizek, which is at least audacious!