1980'S ROCK POLL ALBUMS/TRACKS VOTING THREAD. (Voting closes September 20) (all welcome to vote inc Lurkers)

Told ya!

They ruffled some feathers being on SST and supporting Black Flag. Nowadays all the vitus fans i know are flag fans too

Some Dude are you checking any albums out?

::rolls eyes, sighs loudly, turns off the laptop, goes to bed::

not last night then he didnt(which is what i was asking but n/m)

unfortunately, I really don't have time atm to get into this, but the Library-of-Congress BS is just tautological nonsense outside of the realm of aesthetic discourse per se. I would say the record is "numbingly boring" instead of "sprawling". I also know that trad. critics go nuts for those double albums and see the form as inherently more serious than single albums, but SY's musical ambitions by that point had actually shrunk compared with the earlier records. their pop ambitions, though, had soared. and that's my problem with both pop criticism and canon building, which are almost inextricable: they both are heavily engaged w/extra-musical concerns. I like SY the form-destroying rock band, not the SY that writes catchy pop tunes. I don't expect you to agree w/me at all, but this is essentially where I'm coming from. I'm generalizing all over the place b/c I have to run, but I'm essentially looking at SY from the opposite side of the street, so to speak.

― Hellhouse, Saturday, September 1, 2012 7:36 PM (Yesterday)

didn't reply to this in full earlier so

if u don't actually listen to rock music that much, it is striking to find all of these betrayal narratives and essentialist fallacies

they were releasing madonna covers years before daydream nation, they were fully invested in that west-coast pop maudit shtick, karen carpenter, charles manson & the age of aquarius (death valley 69 then expressway...)

so not really 'a form destroying rock band', maybe their very earliest hollowed out no-wave could be described thusly but by the time of evol they were deploying forms in parodic fashion, using strange tunings and so forth but still quite recognisably rock music

daydream nation is a lot more ambitious than either of its predecessors, the weight of a 70s concept rock lp in the service of entropy and dislocation, distended guitar workouts, concrete interludes, thrashy expulsions, the thrill of going nowhere

which summons that tired old question about antonioni 'how do you make a film about ennui without being boring?'......i suppose you don't worry about the ones you lose along the way

This has to be one of the oddest reviews ever: http://www.allmusic.com/album/watashi-dake-mw0001127080

I'm listened to the album a second time now. The first track is mostly vocal with a little feedback. Everything else is clearly noisy electric guitar and voice. I'm not sure there's any piano on this at all. I'm listening to a downloaded copy but the track lengths match up + I checked a clip on Youtube. It doesn't seem like the reviewer was even listening to the same album.

Wouldn't be the first time a hack did that would it?

re: Daydream Nation:

you will have noticed that the LOC citation was wrt the construction of reputation rather aesthetics

it's telling that you would phrase it this way: SY's reputation is ostensibly built upon aesthetics, but the mechanics of canonization IMO involve the establishment of reputation above and beyond aesthetics, so "reputation rather [than] aesthetics" is an inadvertently apt description of the true nature of the record's "importance".

daydream nation was inducted into the library of congress archive of historically important records or w/e

ultimately everyone who isn't the rolling stones gets to have one famous canonical album and in this instance it is apt

wrt the thing itself, it does usefully encapsulate sonic youth......the name, the richter cover, the sprawl of it, the vaulting ambition mostly realized; its structural integrity is greater than any of their other lps

of the seven criteria you mention to bolster your claims for DN's canonicity (LOC, encapsulation, the name, the cover, the "sprawl", the "ambition", the structural integrity), only "vaulting ambition mostly realized" addresses the music per se, and then only abstractly. (“structural integrity” is I think the perception of how the preceding criteria mesh to form a unified impression, which may then be “heard” [recognized, really] in the music; in any event it doesn’t address the strength of the individual tracks allegedly making this whole that is greater than the parts).

essentially, you’re trying to tell me why the record is “important” without discussing the music in any meaningful way. it’s this sort of dislocation/recontextualization of value that is at the essence of canonization, which is why I don’t give a fuck about any of your arguments w/r/t the actual music found on the record.

I recently listened to all of SY’s 80s records for the purpose of this poll, having not heard some of them for years. again I was struck by the intensity, innovation and forceful noise/rock juxtapositions of Confusion is Sex, Kill Yr. Idols, Bad Moon Rising and Evol. by comparison, Daydream Nation sounds so tepid, so half-hearted, so pointless and rote. I’ve always thought that SY were a notably untalented pop band who never had a true taste or ability for catchy hooks and fleet songs like Husker Du or Dinosaur Jr. Daydream Nation’s pop is lumbering, and its noise is tired. the record IMO falls flat by either standard. whenever I listen to it, I find myself wondering why these songs were written, why someone felt they had to be heard. all of the urgency of SY’s earlier music has disappeared, and the record is at best a pleasant diversion. in a sense, DN is like the LOC “honor” itself: it confers value that’s pre-existing, or to put it another way, references value that’s long past. some people actually have a taste for this sort of second-hand representation (often flying under the banner of “refinement”), but I don’t. you don’t agree with me, and that’s fine, but I’m not particularly interested in referencing the band’s “worth” outside of the context of aesthetics.

if u don't actually listen to rock music that much, it is striking to find all of these betrayal narratives and essentialist fallacies
they were releasing madonna covers years before daydream nation, they were fully invested in that west-coast pop maudit shtick, karen carpenter, charles manson & the age of aquarius (death valley 69 then expressway...)

so not really 'a form destroying rock band', maybe their very earliest hollowed out no-wave could be described thusly but by the time of evol they were deploying forms in parodic fashion, using strange tunings and so forth but still quite recognisably rock music

daydream nation is a lot more ambitious than either of its predecessors, the weight of a 70s concept rock lp in the service of entropy and dislocation, distended guitar workouts, concrete interludes, thrashy expulsions, the thrill of going nowhere

which summons that tired old question about antonioni 'how do you make a film about ennui without being boring?'......i suppose you don't worry about the ones you lose along the way

you’re addressing the band as artists, not musicians, and the record as a piece of conceptual art, not a collection of rock songs. this skewed perspective exactly addresses the point that I’m making above: I think that too often pop criticism is really just a branch of literary criticism that is far too involved in privileging ideas about the music over the music itself. I generally listen to rock music the way I listen to techno or house: as riffs and rhythms, as texture, speed, dynamics, weight, volume, dissonance, tone. I’m not particularly interested in SY’s conceptual art strategies, except to the degree that these strategies - in the early years based around notions of channeling the dissonance and aesthetic deconstructions of no wave through more conventional hard rock structures - intensify the music and push it to greater heights. consequently, the early music is forcefully engaged with the mechanics of music while the later music prioritizes the conceptual strategies over the music (ie: the music becomes more pop than rock). I’m not succumbing to an “essentialist fallacy”, I’m talking about the conceptualism serving and feeding the music in the early years and dominating it in the later years. the issue obviously isn’t black-and-white, because we’re dealing with a gradually sliding scale. I’d agree that DN is bearing the weight of “70s concept rock”, but to its detriment. the riffs and rhythms are tired, perhaps because they’re acting as mere placeholders for lame concepts involving semi-ironic retro appropriation of AOR. look, we’re never going to agree on this issue because ultimately I think that we’re using entirely different metrics. you can say all day long that DN as a conceptual package is somehow “more ambitious” than the earlier records, but the actual music patently is not, and in no way supports your argument. the “thrashy expulsions” and “distended guitar workouts” of DN are watery retreads of their earlier work, and as such do indeed “go nowhere”, and the “thrills” derived are so mild-mannered as to seem wholly irrelevant.

we could back-and-forth on this forever, but the bottom line is that you like the record and will place it high on your list, and I won’t. there’s no point in dragging this out ad nauseam.

/DN dead-horse flogging (apologies for the tl;dr post)

You should never apologise for a long post. Its like back in the old days of ILM

Seandalai have we any more ballots?

of the seven criteria you mention to bolster your claims for DN's canonicity (LOC, encapsulation, the name, the cover, the "sprawl", the "ambition", the structural integrity), only "vaulting ambition mostly realized" addresses the music per se, and then only abstractly.

I don't agree and think there are certain givens in praising some of these aspects of the record. If I were to praise its sprawl, for example, it's implicit that I'm praising a particular compositional aspect. That's true of praising its structural integrity also.

I don't agree and think there are certain givens in praising some of these aspects of the record. If I were to praise its sprawl, for example, it's implicit that I'm praising a particular compositional aspect. That's true of praising its structural integrity also.

as I mention upthread, I think critics are prone to overvaluing the double album, often seeing ambition instead of bloat. "sprawl" in this sense is I think more about packaging than aesthetic scope.

this gets back to my point about DN ticking certain "masterpiece" boxes more related to canonicity than aesthetic worth per se.

You think that's why critics prefer Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade to New Day Rising?

No, I liked the sprawl of Daydream Nation when it came out. I haven't listened to it in a long time, but I think there's a certain luxuriance to the album sonically - it's a very pretty sounding record, prettier in my opinion than their earlier records - that's maintained by good composition throughout.

I also don't remember thinking that there was anything more conceptual going on with the band when Daydream Nation came out or that writing more melodic songs had a particularly conceptual basis.

Apart from that, you seem to frame it in a particularly rockist when you say:

the later music prioritizes the conceptual strategies over the music (ie: the music becomes more pop than rock).

particularly rockist WAY

on this board, "rockist" is more slander than argument, and I'm not going to have that discussion with you. I'm p. sure that you can use the following to hammer me w/the charge of "rockism":

I generally listen to rock music the way I listen to techno or house: as riffs and rhythms, as texture, speed, dynamics, weight, volume, dissonance, tone.

I apply the above to music both quiet and loud, to rock and non-rock. it's simply my approach to listening. if you'd like to frame this as "rockism" and therefore dismiss the entirety of my argument, I'm not going to try to stop you. there are other threads for these clusterfucks.

No, it doesn't have anything to do with what you like. I was talking about a particular quote where you said:

consequently, the early music is forcefully engaged with the mechanics of music while the later music prioritizes the conceptual strategies over the music (ie: the music becomes more pop than rock).

As though a bigger involvement with pop means less engagement with the mechanics of music and more engagement with mere conceptuality by definition.

I'm actually referring to the (imaginary) sliding scale of rock/pop within rock music, if this clarifies matters. despite my participation in this poll, I actually vastly prefer listening to instrumental music over music tangled up with issues of personae. so in this sense, yes I listen to rock with a "rockist" bias. I prefer my rock music to be more heavily engaged with formal sonic excursions over issues involving personae, fashion, marketing, politics, etc., which I choose to define as resting more on the "pop" side of the scale. as I mention above, this imaginary rock/pop divide is all just one big, sliding scale, a single area of grey. At either end are ghosts, unobtainable Platonic ideals. I am 100% sure that you and I will not see eye-to-eye on this issue, precisely because I am choosing to use the word "pop" with a slightly negative connotation in this particular context. my goal, however, is not to rob you of your love of DN so much as to state my reasons for disliking it, and in my opinion, DN falls more on the pop side of the scale compared to SY's earlier works. if it makes you feel better, I can say instead that I think DN rocks in a way that is considerably less intense than the earlier records, and not invoke the word "pop" at all. Either way, we arrive at the destination.

*same destination

in any event it doesn’t address the strength of the individual tracks allegedly making this whole that is greater than the parts

Wait, Mr da Silva will have to explain what he meant but this is how I understood "structural integrity". It also makes sense to me: the tracks on DN do flow together really well as a whole for me, even though in terms of what they do with timbres derived from extended guitar techniques, it's much less adventurous and ambitious than the first three albums. Exile on Main Street is another example of an album that flows together well as a whole like this, even though the songcraft on a track-by-track basis may not be up there with the best 60s Stones. Neither is a concept, or highly conceptual, album.

Didn't quite feel up to nomming for this but will have a go at putting together a ballot. Advance warning that it'll most likely be biased towards punk and noisier indie rock and light on the metal side of things.

Wait, Mr da Silva will have to explain what he meant but this is how I understood "structural integrity". It also makes sense to me: the tracks on DN do flow together really well as a whole for me, even though in terms of what they do with timbres derived from extended guitar techniques, it's much less adventurous and ambitious than the first three albums. Exile on Main Street is another example of an album that flows together well as a whole like this, even though the songcraft on a track-by-track basis may not be up there with the best 60s Stones. Neither is a concept, or highly conceptual, album.

yeah, the track sequencing is nice, but IMO the individual songs are so fucking boring that it just doesn't matter. I see the "structural integrity" argument as a way of referencing the supposed formal (and somewhat long-in-tooth) superiority of the album over the track, and in the process sneaking "excellence" in the back door through said conceptual device. I mean, logically, I understand the idea of the "great album" made from less-than-great tracks, but at least in this particular case, I find it less than satisfying.

I love Daydream Nation and the albums that preceded it. all these goofy theories about why it's clearly inferior but revered by critics for clearly wrong reasons are whatever.

Says a critic!

no more goofy than your theories for loving it, IMO, and certainly no more goofy than the record itself. I think this is p. obvious.

i mean there's plenty of insight to truth to what you're saying. you've just got such a massive chip on your shoulder over 20+ years of outrage that some people like it more than Sister that it's just hilarious imo.

I think it's more the way he perceives the critics have exerted their influence to make people think it's better. You may or may not agree with that of course.

I like em both and what came before it just fine. I just personally like Evol and Sister better. I heard them all about the same time in like 1991 or so and ive always preferred those 2.

Same goes with New Day Rising just slightly ahead of Zen Arcade. Id rank Zen Arcade and Double Nickels ahead of Daydream Nation though.

imo the double album died when CDs started to replace vinyl, because while it's at least possible to fill two 40-minute LPs, almost anyone who tries to fill two 60-80-minute CDs is gonna end up with a mess. so in my mind Daydream Nation (and before it Sign O' The Times and Double Nickels) basically marks the end of the era of great double albums.

i mean there's plenty of insight to truth to what you're saying. you've just got such a massive chip on your shoulder over 20+ years of outrage that some people like it more than Sister that it's just hilarious imo.

see, this is the problem with criticizing a record that many people feel is canonical and almost self-evidently good. you have to come out of the gate with some force to gain any traction and overcome the initial bias that your criticism is incorrect before it's barely been heard. irl, obviously no one is forcing me to listen to DN, I never think about it, and when I listened to it the other day, it played harmlessly and once again made no impression on me at all; in other words, the record's existence is nbd. it's absurd to even say that, but it's true. ridiculous but true! in this particular context (ILM), however, people are heavily invested in the record's reputation (naturally), so small comments blow up into larger clusterfucks. I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know. I can see the absurdity of writing so much shit about a stupid record, but you can see the same absurdity in any thread on this board. compared to other threads with thousands of posts this discussion has actually been mercifully short and mild-mannered.

Sister is awesome, it totally SHOULD be some people's favorite SY album. they've got a lot of albums like that, that's why they're my favorite band.

You missed out Zen Arcade some dude

For those whose fave albums are the ones in the canon, I do wonder if that's the only album they have by the band sometimes. It certainly explains why so many rate Sgt Peppers as the best Beatles album.

i said "in my mind" and my mind has never heard Zen Arcade

tbf my rants against people who think Exile is the best Stones album are pretty similar to Hellhouse's rants against Daydream Nation

haha Sometimes it is my fave stones album sometimes its sticky fingers or beggars banquet or...

I see the "structural integrity" argument as a way of referencing the supposed formal (and somewhat long-in-tooth) superiority of the album over the track

Except when it's not. I would imagine that some people genuinely like the individual tracks on Daydream Nation quite a bit and would make the case of the album's structural merit based not only on its across-the-board vibe but on the strength of its individual tracks.

in this particular context (ILM), however, people are heavily invested in the record's reputation

People might genuinely like the record and might want to stick up for it, rather than just being "invested in its reputation."

Except when it's not. I would imagine that some people genuinely like the individual tracks on Daydream Nation quite a bit and would make the case of the album's structural merit based not only on its across-the-board vibe but on the strength of its individual tracks.

I have no doubt that there are people who love every single aspect of the record to bits.

People might genuinely like the record and might want to stick up for it, rather than just being "invested in its reputation."

to professional music critics as well as people who are music fanatics (or both), I don't think there's any difference whatsoever.

Would love to know why NME decided Warehouse was the Husker Du album for their canon. Were they late in covering them or did they just prefer the poppy more college rock aesthetic?

You think that's why critics prefer Hüsker Dü's Zen Arcade to New Day Rising?

I can see ZA as being better, but I think that there's something robotic and suspect about the way ZA and Double Nickels are always the favorite records, no matter who is voting or where the voting is taking place or when it's taking place (it's a plot!) I mean, you would think that someone somewhere actually has a different opinion. I can actually see arguments for Punchline or What Makes a Man being better than Double Nickels, though, and I'm sure there are people (somewhere) who prefer New Day or Flip Your Wig and are actually willing to go on record with their opinion (no pun intended).

ha! competition is rough for magazines these days; maybe they realize that they actually have to differentiate their opinions for people to give a shit.

xp

I think those 3 Huskers are perfect and tbh I guess I have a different favourite at different times however if push came to shove I'd go with New Day Rising more than the others.

I love Daydream Nation and the albums that preceded it. all these goofy theories about why it's clearly inferior but revered by critics for clearly wrong reasons are whatever.

― cute, banned, alert (some dude), Sunday, September 2, 2012 9:53 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yeah

i read most of hellhouse's posts but they are mostly prolix in the extreme, full of dead reifications and thuddingly reiterated piecemeal formalism with no nuance and capacity to think beyond this weird half-world of musical, textual purity

sonic youth are the apogee of impure music, they are allusive in the extreme, postmodern to a fault, you might as well take berio's sinfonia and treat it as an atomized, orphaned musical object

Nah hellhouse I doubt NME cares about Husker Du anymore. Them and Sugar (1992 album of year)seem to have been wiped out of their history. Bob Mould is no longer god there. Raw and Kerrang in the early90s loved both though.
NME has Pixies, Sonic Youth and maybe Dinosaur Jr in their canon now. Maybe HD need to reform &reissue the albums.

i'm not sure i understand your criticisms of daydream nation or its canonization, hellhouse, other than that you seem to have an aversion to to the celebration of what you see as extramusical virtues. the problem is that, to the extent that we aren't well versed in music theory and/or practice, it's difficult to discuss an album's "purely musical" virtues in any but most vague and personal terms. and even if we are well-versed in theory, taste always boils down to more-or-less arbitrary preference.

daydream nation isn't my favorite sonic youth album. evol is more seductive, sister more visceral, and goo more thrillingly varied. i find some of its most celebrated tracks (especially "teenage riot") a bit dull and miss the scruffy digressiveness of the early records, but i simply can't agree that it's "so tepid, so half-hearted, so pointless and rote." to push a little harder, while you may be responding authentically to the music, it's hard to engage with that sort of analysis beyond simply nodding or shaking one's head. different strokes, right?

like most "ambitious" doubles, daydream nation is way too long, but in that it offers us an enjoyable opportunity to construct the version that best suits our tastes - especially if we throw in the whitey album as its b-side. i'll take "eric's trip", "rain king" and "total trash" while someone else might start with "teenage riot" and "cross the breeze". i find my groove(y)-enhanced reduction about as musically satisfying as any other sonic youth album, though it'll never be my absolute favorite.

the whole hellhouse project of reducing culture to a series of contained artifacts, then treating each object as if it were a monolake record, seems to depend for its existence on some negative definition with the imagined 'critical world', where culture is bled of its intrinsic value in some horridly miscegenate amalgam of the nontextual

within the sphere of popular music, the critics reward those rock bands who ascend 'the (imaginary) sliding scale of rock/pop within rock music', thus themselves being agents in the aesthetic degeneration of the one pure petrine unsullied ROCK

contrarily one can not really care very much about critics, save perhaps to note that sometimes the famous one is the good one too