theo parrish s/d

the question then becomes my status as a speaker - to what extent can I as a white middle-class Australian presume to involve myself in discussions about a musical quality bound up in notions of black working-class urban American community.

-- Tim F

coming from a white person, i love it. love it love it love it.

-- pipecock

yes, it was deliberately over the top. xposts..

"But this comes back to the point you made about gatekeeper militancy originally - ultimately what's "at stake" is not the quality of the music but broader cultural or even socio-political concerns. But let's be honest about that."

yes, exactly!

my point is that it is difficult to separate the music from everything else.

Again, I don't want to claim that the experience-of-music of a black girl from south side Chicago is invalid, but that doesn't mean that the way she chooses to describe that experience is "right" in an objective sense. But I will say that if she wants to convince me she will have to phrase her experience in a way that accords with my standards of reasonable communicability.

But if she believes in "soul" in that strong sense, she won't want to have that conversation with me - the terms of engagement already set out that I do not, will not and cannot "get it." Soul at this point is by definition non-communicable to people outside the community.

Since one of the terms of the hypothetical conversation is that a conversation as such cannot happen, what is at stake is not the existence and nature of soul, but the identity of the participants in the conversation, and whether they both belong to a community that believe in "soul" in the strong sense.

x-post Of course it is, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a certain intellectual dishonesty involved in saying something like "white european techno has no soul, with some exceptions that I will not name". If the speaker really means "I am politically and culturally invested in promoting the interests of musicians from Detroit" then they have the option of just saying that. Pretending that it's "all about the music" is a strategic deception.

Or prove me wrong: someone say "Subjectively I think Theo Parrish (or Ricardo Villalobos) is a genius, but if someone were to make a convincing argument that objectively he is not, I will accept that."

I do this all the time. I know next to nothing about jazz, therefore if I walk into the house of someone with 10,000 jazz records, I won't pick out 'Kind of Blue' and insist we listen to it from beginning to end; I'd let them put the record on. If they've got 10,000 jazz records, and I've got 5, they've obviously got something to teach me. There are objective facets to jazz that I've simply never been exposed to.

This is the same attitude the scientist takes: being open to persuasion. Room for doubt. I think what I think, but if you dig up the right bones, you've got the chance to prove me wrong.

This is why we have experts. This is why we have DJs/proper critics. Because they (should) have the bones, so to speak.

The problem with the radically subjective argument is that it's inheriently non-humble. It's not open to persuasion. It can even come across as a cover for ignorance: "I think what I think, and no matter how many records you play, or how well you explain why you like them, it's not going to change my mind one iota." In that sense, it's like religion.

Yes, music is a language more than a science. And the subjectivists will counter my example with "Yes, but the guy's 10,000 records might be all turn out to all rubbish." Well, that strikes me as a bit arrogant - a bit like "my subjective taste is the only thing that matters". As if they're somehow immune to the memes. I reckon the language analogy is a good one I think: Even if you don't like any of his records, you'll have learned a bit more of the language. And when you listen to 'Kind of Blue' again, it might sound different. More in context. Better or worse. This happens all the time.

The problem with the radically subjective argument is that it's inheriently non-humble. It's not open to persuasion. It can even come across as a cover for ignorance: "I think what I think, and no matter how many records you play, or how well you explain why you like them, it's not going to change my mind one iota." In that sense, it's like religion.

except that this isnt really the 'radically subjective' argument

Example: I used to give credit to Bjork for having a unique voice, until I heard 'Typical Girl' by The Slits!

on this thread, it seems like the "subjectivists" are more open to persuasion than vice-versa. or at least, they're not the ones complaining about the narrow range of worthwhile techno.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Straw_dogs_movie_poster.jpg/418px-Straw_dogs_movie_poster.jpg

see what i did there

good dog your argument is fundamentally messed up, because it's not (and tim was getting at this a bit upthread) a 2-way relationship.

what about the guy with 10,000 records? is his feeling 2,000 times more real than yours? what if you walk in with the EXACT PERFECT FIVE techno records, and he's still like "nope, shit sucks, made by machines, no harmony, no melody, no technique, no improvisation" and you're like "but but this drexciya track was recorded live in one take" and he's like "no way son, shit don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing".

the problem with your example is the same as tricky's: there's already a hierarchy implied in the set-up of your story.

and i don't mean to say experts aren't great! but generally what experts are good at is explaining the minutiae of their field, of explaining in very detailed terms what's great about their field of expertise. like sometime ILX poster phil d freeman (PDF), who is the guy to go to if you want an explanation of this electric miles track or that funkadelic track. he'll tell you what's great about them.

what experts are not so great at are doing the vague types of things that people on this thread are imputing to priveleged listeners: picking one genre over another, one subgenre over another, explaining the superiority of their particular turf over other turfs, explaining metaphysical ideas like "soul", "funk", "swing", "realness", etc.

at best, they can question these things, throw in additional complications, like "hey how DO you know that electric miles had less technique?" or "hey what makes you think disco's not real?" or "what makes you think tiffany isn't as raw as black sabbath?"

like most academics and most critics, experts are usually pretty good at making positive claims but very unpersuasive at making negative claims.

sorry deej i took it way too far.

what about the guy with 10,000 records? is his feeling 2,000 times more real than yours?

No, a feeling is a feeling, whether the music is good or not. I listen to cruddy music and enjoy it, but there should still be room in there for admitting that what I’m listening to kinda sucks in X, Y & Z ways. This is the difference: Subjectivists would say “I like it” means the same thing as “it’s good”. But those two things can (and should) be separated out. The value of it, the quality, the social environ, etc are independent factors completely separated from “your taste”.

To take a language example: little kids laugh at crap jokes. Does that mean these jokes are funny? Not really. What’s really going on is that the kids have never been exposed to the jokes before, therefore they laugh. “Knock knock” “Who’s there?” “Dr” “Dr Who?”. The first time, ha ha. Now you’ve heard it 1000 times, it’s like white noise. It’s not a matter of objective/subjective, it’s a matter of more information – being exposed to memes in the culture.

Which is why I would defend expertise: In your eg, the jazz dude’s feeling about techno is wrong not because of his feeling, but because he’s making a category mistake by judging techno with jazz criteria. The opposite is true too: you can’t listen to Pharoah Sanders for dancability. It’s like an Englishman trying to read a Chinese novel – first you have to learn the language.

I’d say it doesn’t work both ways: the dude with 10,000 records gets to instruct the dude with 5 records.

getting sort of annoyed w/ all the people in here arguing for objective 'criteria' without being explicit about what those criteria are

like, if there actually are objective standards by which we can judge music--setting aside good dog's assertion that each genre has its own criteria, which puts you on pretty shaky ground--why dont you guys just tell me so i can stop wasting my time?

those jokes are really funny, good dog

:-/

Subjectivists would say “I like it” means the same thing as “it’s good”. But those two things can (and should) be separated out.

craziness!

no its important that we establish a parameter of self-loathing in any good critical framework

"i love this record, and im FILLED WITH SHAME for doing so"

i think i used the word parameter wrong there

this thread :

http://www.azfreeride.com/files/news_images/road_crash/bike_crash.jpg

which doesn't mean i haven't been enjoying it ;)

Max, well since we're talking about dance music, a good example of something everyone could agree on is: does it have a danceable rhythm?

BTW I just want to say that I'm not down with gatekeeper canonisation, etc. What Tim said upthead rings very true I think:

Replacing intuition with self-understanding is (or should be) the model of good criticism: the compliment I most enjoy being paid as a writer is "thank you, I was sorta thinking/feeling the same thing but I couldn't put it into words."

ok, right, but, uh, what if you and i dance in very different ways?

sorry that line of argument wont go anywhere--im just pretty suspicious of people who are willing to argue that there is objective good and objective bad music without being specific about what those ideas would entail

and the thing is, once they get specific about those ideas, the conversation is no longer interesting, because why bother talking about whats good and whats bad if we can just make a list from best to worst--you notice that geir never makes posts longer than a couple lines, because he has nothing to say about most records besides where they rank

so you see when you argue that "radical subjectivism" (which im putting in scare quotes since i dont really have any idea what it means, to me this position is just sort of 'common sense') shuts down discourse im not really sure how to respond since it seems as though subjectivity is the only thing that allows for conversation in the first place

max, I don't really know how to respond. I'd just repeat that everything should be taken in its context - there is a "best" for peaktime at clubs, and a "best" for lazy Sunday mornings, and whether you like the track or not is often dependent on your exposure to those situations.

I'm again putting all varieties of music onto one one iPod and listening for the same things from them. That's what the phrase "radical subjectivity" conjures up to me: a dude with an iPod moving through the city listening to all these different kind of musics, totally oblivious to the purpose of the music, and the world around him.

-- pipecock

^ coming from a white person, i love it.

"I'm again putting all varieties of music onto one one iPod and listening for the same things from them. That's what the phrase "radical subjectivity" conjures up to me: a dude with an iPod moving through the city listening to all these different kind of musics, totally oblivious to the purpose of the music, and the world around him."

Good dog this is doing some pretty heavy leaning on the notion of subjectivity.

it's kinda like saying "what bugs me about the concept of democracy is that in the US only extremists on either side vote!"

To which everyone responds, "b-b-but what does that have to do with the concept of democracy?"

Surely the entire point of (what you are choosing to call) "radical subjectivity" as applied to music is that we are never "listening for the same things" from different pieces of music, that there are as many "best" musics for different situations as there are situations.

there is a "best" for peaktime at clubs

and is this the same whether you're at the sound factory or the music box?

and if so, could we decide which is better?

(obv. my hypothetical claim re voting patterns in the US also isn't true, I was just offering up a counter-strawman)

The thread is moving away from the issue now but one thing I wanted to add w/r/t tricky's strawsoulwoman is that she implies the assumption that anything that actually inspires good art has some kind of independent truth value - that if she tries to make "soulful" music and this results in actually good music, then her concept of "soul" has legitimacy, at least at some level.

In effect this equates sincerity with truth.

I suppose an analogy would be saying that the great works of religious art, having been inspired by the creator's relationship with God, offer some level of legitimacy to the notion of God's incontrovertible existence.

And certainly many people would say that you can't really "get" religious art without sharing in its beliefs and intentions (this is a different and more limited claim however).

For me there is no contradiction in saying I disbelieve in God but think that much religious art is brilliant. To which Michaelangelo responds ""talk to the hand motherfucker you don't know shit about God."

And certainly art criticism today does not by and large parrot the notion that the masters of the renaissance were inspired by God to greater or lesser degrees (I'm leaving aside entirely the possibility that some only painted religious scenes due to social expectation anyway) - what was once seen as divine inspiration is now considered to be a matter of technique etc.

well, i think you can find some nuance in there.

great works of religious art basically *are* the creator's relationship with god and are not just evidence of god's existence but they make up basically make up all we know about god.

that's what i think anyway.

i think roughly the same thing about soul and soul music. soul's not some thing that has any reality outside the performance of soul.

"To take a language example: little kids laugh at crap jokes. Does that mean these jokes are funny? Not really. What’s really going on is that the kids have never been exposed to the jokes before, therefore they laugh. “Knock knock” “Who’s there?” “Dr” “Dr Who?”. The first time, ha ha. Now you’ve heard it 1000 times, it’s like white noise. It’s not a matter of objective/subjective, it’s a matter of more information – being exposed to memes in the culture."

Good dog this implies that there's finally a point where you "get" humour objectively. But isn't it true that the humour value of all jokes is contextual? The "best" joke in the world starts to drag on the fifth laboured retelling, at which point the little kid's toilet humour might become quite refreshing. And there are many celebrated comedians who many people claim "aren't funny" - they're not necessarily ignorant critics either, comedians call eachother out for being not funny all the time. This is why we talk about someone's "unusual sense of humour" - humour is very deeply bound up in a person's individuality, their life experience, their cultural affiliations, their politics etc. etc.

Your notion of some sort of teleology of humour (from knock knocks to woody allen, say) doesn't reflect the existence of some sort of platonic ideal joke, just the fact that our process of education and enculturation is often very similar. Ironically, it is at the knock knock stage that humour appears most objective: that is the stage when the same joke is likeliest to be funny to the entire community of participants (little kids). As we grow older we find less and less consensus w/r/t to what constitutes a good joke.

I'm astonished that you've tried to use humour as your example here because I can't think of any aspect of cultural life that is more obviously subjective!

BOURDIEU TO THREAD OBV!

"i think roughly the same thing about soul and soul music. soul's not some thing that has any reality outside the performance of soul."

yes I absolutely agree with this actually. Perhaps the most amazing thing about aesthetic production is that it can give life to something that may not exist independently.

I was thinking about your raising of slash fiction earlier actually. There's an underlying assumption at work when we sit down to write slash fiction based on actual fiction (rather than, say, real life celebrities) that the characters have some life outside of the artwork in which they appear. It would be absurd to say that the amount of slash fiction devoted to Spock and Kirk is testament to the fact of their existence. But I think it's true to say that Spock and Kirk have a kind of "spectral" existence in that they can enter into new pieces of art entirely independently from the circumstances of their original creation.

"the most amazing thing" is an unsubstantiated claim that I haven't thought about deeply so don't go the hack plz.

re: joeks.

oh man, my dad told the worst joke at dinner tonight.

"this guy goes out to dinner, and has a really great meal. and the bill comes back: one dollar. he figures it's a mistake, but he doesn't say anything. he feels guilty, so the next night, he comes back, but he brings his family to make up for it. they eat a lavish meal, with wine, and the bill comes back: one dollar. he can't figure it out. so the next night, he brings the whole office! and they eat a thousand dollars worth of food. and finally the waiter brings the bill around: one dollar. so he goes to the manager, and says, 'hey boss, i can't figure it out, seems like no matter what i order it comes out to one dollar.' and the manager says 'that's right.' and the guy says 'well, you can't be making any money!' and the manager says 'that's right.' and the guy says 'well, how come you're doing this?' and the manager says 'well, the owner's fucking my wife.'"

jeez, dad.

just as an example of a joke that's like, mature in every way, includes all the various adult joke-memes and structures, but totally stinks. and my dad was telling it so well, that i was totally primed for like the most hilarious punchline ever, too.

Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to come up with a punchline that redeems that joke.

The build-up had me primed too and I knew in advance that I was in for a let-down!

"the most amazing thing" is an unsubstantiated claim that I haven't thought about deeply so don't go the hack plz.

when i was younger i was actually quite religious. and people around me would say things like "when we prays as a community, i can feel god in the room". and later in life, when i lost my faith in god, i realized they were right. we entered as a group into a ritual, that gave us a particular feeling, and we called that god. and i still feel that way on the very rare occasions that i attend a religious service with my parents. because we're the mystical part (that's an adjective reserved for people, right?): the power in the observance comes from our entering into a contract in the ritual. i know that because i get quite a kick out of the service, even though i don't believe in god, whereas i do believe in the ritual. and i know people who claim to believe in god but don't buy into the ritual who don't get a damn thing out of it. anyway, i hope that's clear what i'm trying to say. all we know about god is from our performance of these rituals, and so it's no surprise that we confuse our feelings during that moment with the thing itself.

^^ this is basically music consumption, right?

maybe i am getting a little carried away here

I dig that analogy.

no I think you're right vahid! And to bring the argument full-circle, the truth of "god being in the room" is basically the "truth" that I would say resides in gatekeeper militancy. It's the truth that the performance of ritual engenders belief. That belonging to a community with a shared understanding is what gives that understanding "truth" rather than truth being the litmus test for adopting that understanding in the first place.

The argument for buying into any form of gatekeeper militancy is basically the same one used to encourage non-believers to join institutionalized churches: if you act as if you belief and engage in all the rituals that reflect this, those very ritualized acts will create a sense of belief in you. And a lot of music fandom does work like this: people buy Astral Weeks (or, ha ha, Parallel Dimensions - which I do love) and listen to it again and again until they too can hear what all the great critics hear.

what did my old sunday school teacher (now sadly dying of alzheimers, i should give him a call while he still remembers me) used to say about prayer? "you know, this stuff tends to work better when you really believe in it."

the strange thing for me is my sense that certain music seems to reward this more. i have no idea if this is true, or just some weird bias. for example, underground resistance seems to reward this attitude much better than, uh, fischerspooner. though maybe with fischerspooner it's another kind of participation. maybe not so much "true believer" as "i'm in on the joke".

The music/religion analogy works very well - the context is the thing.

I'm just wary of the alternatives though - the last thing dance music needs a criticism that doesn't go to church on Sunday mornings

Tim F. acts as though the "community" comes to a shared understanding arbitrarily. That is not the case, the values and interests of the community manifest themselves in its output. It isnt one person or even a small group of people who make the criteria for something being "good", it is a huge group of people and experiences of those people (some of whom could be dead if the community has existed for a substantial amount of time). This means it can and does change with time, that is the nature of it. But what I feel has happened in the case of the popularity of some musics is that these values are ignored by people outside the community who try to get in on their idea. This can sometimes lead to interesting results, other times to derivative but inferior copies. I think you can guess which I feel is more prevalent. That music which comes from outside the community is then judged by that community's standards, some is adopted and becomes part of that community's constant inner dialogue. That which is not assimilated back into the community often comes back claiming the name given to it but without the values that come with that name. It seems obvious to me why that would irritate people.

This is not to say that an individual or even a subgroup of that community doesnt disagree with the community at large's decision, but that still doesnt change the decision.