Simon Reynolds - C or D

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1473 of them)
new interview:

Perfect Sound Forever - Simon Reynolds on post-punk
http://www.furious.com/perfect/simonreynolds3.html

DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:46 (twenty years ago)

I find that spending time analysing WHY I like something is only useful in that it might help me move in an interesting direction next. I don't bother thinking about whether the reasons are 'correct', 'defeating anything', 'rockist', 'non-rockist', 'post-rockist', 'popist', 'reynoldsian' blah blah. Life's too short and I am 44.

All the debate about rockism over the years on ILM has made me realise that I haven't got a clue what it's all about anymore now the whole things has had several lifecycles. All I can conclude is that any notion of the pop/rock or popist/rockist divide is kind of redundant now and has been for years. I think it had a purpose back in 81/82 when people were trying to set up a context for nu-pop. Even then I think it was the punkist idea of having to be 'against' something that spawned rockism. Of course all the writers and nu-pop class of 81/82 were all punks in in 1977, so that's natural.

Dr.C (Dr.C), Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:52 (twenty years ago)

tim, "regular people" (aka non-ilxors) talk about reviews that they've read, they just don't mention x-brand critical theorists.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:53 (twenty years ago)

I'm sure that's true, in so far as "regular people" exist, but places where we/they do talk about x-brand critical theory surely *are* crit-bubbleworld, if any sensible definition of crit-bubbleworld exists?

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:57 (twenty years ago)

I am reading rip it up... at the moment. it's very enjoyable and illuminating in parts, a shame that I'd as good as seen the cab voltaire part already on the village voice's website. the enthusiasm level seems to waver in the writing though - the chapter on scritti in the first half is so vivid; some of the other stuff seems flat in comparison that you can tell they're an obvious favourite. I wish he'd been as "on" in the other chapters.

the blog screeds... I dunno, seems more like the urge to document ("here I am comin' atcha straight from the grime trenches at their realest") takes over from rational thought. complaining about the presence of "long-form Works that take effort and perseverance and time to unlock their depth and detail" on a BEST ALBUMS list, good god.

rez one-bagger (haitch), Thursday, 2 February 2006 13:57 (twenty years ago)

i think by the 'bubbleworld' zing reynolds means its solely inhabited by rock critics and their blogosphere fluffers.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:03 (twenty years ago)

Crit-bubbleworld sounds like some terrifying lavatorial experiment.

I quite like the use of imperatives! and exclamation marks! in fanzines!

It is sweet that you kept them, Tim.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:04 (twenty years ago)

given what it's surrounded with--several records I voted for included--who, precisely, thinks that M.I.A. got to no. 2 on the plastic-fun vote?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:28 (twenty years ago)

anyway, the comparison isn't to King of America (which meant plenty outside the crit-bubble, especially to folks for whom it was a bridge from college rock to rootsier stuff) or Arrested Development (who I don't recall discussing terrorism)--it's Everything Is Wrong, no. 3 in 1995, and a similar bite-sized consolidation of all those weird beat musics the kids were dancing to but older (not old, just older--30, say) rock critics didn't quite get outside their contexts. Moby went on to a successful career, M.I.A. might or might not, but strictly in album terms that's how I see it.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:32 (twenty years ago)

Arrested Development vs. M.I.A. = granola vs. grenades

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:35 (twenty years ago)

given that the record's placing means it much more on the level of a Los Lobos How Will the Wolf Survive? or Graham Parker’s third lp or King of America i.e. something that don't mean diddly outside the crit-bubbleworld

Who did "KoA" mean stuff to? As Matos says, clearly it meant a lot to a whole lot more people than just music critics and whatever the 1980s equivalent of blogosphere fluffers was (zineosphere?). It seems fairly clear to me that "crit-bubbleworld" here must mean the kind of people who would scour the NME and take what it said seriously. I was one of those, too. I should give up completely, really.

The answer to original question is, I think, classic. That's even though I disagree wth SR much of the time and our tastes barely coincide.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:43 (twenty years ago)

"BE ASHAMED OF LIKING WHAT YOU LIKE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER TO PEOPE WHO AREN'T LIKE YOU"

Eppy (Eppy), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:45 (twenty years ago)

haha Eppy you're clearly forgetting that they are realer than us.

Tim (Tim), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:47 (twenty years ago)

Simon Reynolds in not having a goddamned clue about No Depression-type music shocker

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:54 (twenty years ago)

whatever the 1980s equivalent of blogosphere fluffers was (zineosphere?)

I think college radio figures in here pretty heavily, as much or more than print media, at least in the U.S.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:57 (twenty years ago)

Next month in fRoots: "Drum & bass never meant shit outside a crit bubble."

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 14:58 (twenty years ago)

poor guy can't face the fact that he lost big-time on MIA

and yes, christ, everyone please stop talking in incoherent generalizations about 'rockism' and 'popism' and hyphenated variants thereof

speaking of which

justsaying, Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:19 (twenty years ago)

re. lit-music and auteurism: on this side of the pond, and especially in reynolds' writing, lit crit has been much more central than film criticism, wtf! check out all the critical theory he cites. i don't think u can really 'apply' kael to music in the way they applied barthes; she's a 'voice', i suppose, but there's no framework to transfer over. so reynolds moaning about 'literariness' = DUD.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:36 (twenty years ago)

That blog entry makes me think any of us who have not done a PhD in philosophy should not be allowed to publicly make any use of the little bit we've read.

Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:38 (twenty years ago)

new rockism seems to mean digging the alternative rock canon plus the graves of militant dance music

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:38 (twenty years ago)

plus grime/dancehall

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:38 (twenty years ago)

That blog entry makes me think any of us who have not done a PhD in philosophy should not be allowed to publicly make any use of the little bit we've read.


The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:41 (twenty years ago)

(Indigenous Americans are supposed to be non-historic peoples* (or whatever the terminology would be) according to Hegel, and yet hear they are winning elections and taking on world economic systems.

*That's why they get to be near the end of Dewey decimal divisions.)

Rockist_Scientist (RSLaRue), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:43 (twenty years ago)

In fairness to Simon have you been reading him regularly NRQ? Cos mostly he's been on your wavelength, minus the weird big beat guilt or whatever.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:45 (twenty years ago)

Ronan I'm pretty sure dancehall hasn't been cool vital since mid '04.

deej.. (deej..), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:46 (twenty years ago)

'Engines of intensity' is not bad.

King of America is quite good, I think.

It's funny - maybe even reassuring! - to see Reynolds ranting in a strangely standard vein about rockism. What year is this ... 2002?

It's funny how he talks about Ewing though I don't know that web site that Ewing was on, or what it was all about.

When SR says music is mostly seen as a background to words, I don't really think I agree; it's not like everyone is voting for or buying Lloyd Cole records. Mind you, they have fun music on, too.

I like some of the last 37 posts. People say sensible things.

xpost: make that 44 posts or whatever.

the bellefox, Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:47 (twenty years ago)

In fairness to Simon have you been reading him regularly NRQ? Cos mostly he's been on your wavelength, minus the weird big beat guilt or whatever.
-- Ronan (ronan.fitzgerald6NOSPA...), February 2nd, 2006.

haha, no, not so much.


The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:51 (twenty years ago)

i dont understand the concept of nu-rockism really. it seems to just involves picking up on things that old-rockism forgot. but, this doesnt make sense! rockism is an attitude is it not? deciding that some things fit into the schema, when they didnt before, isnt a new form of rockism, its just the same thing.

That's how I understand it too ... nu-rockism is the same as old rockism, but with a different canon, i.e. after you boot Joni Mitchell from your music collection and replace her with Fiona Apple, it's back to business as usual.

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 2 February 2006 15:52 (twenty years ago)

I feel better already.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:00 (twenty years ago)

no, nu-rockism involved getting rid of the divine fiona because she fits the slot previous occupied by other female singer-songwriters, likewise kanye west. anyone feel uncomfortable with this? no sonic analysis here, just 'oh, troubled dames, put 'em over there'.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:05 (twenty years ago)

well isn't Simon merely suggesting that's what is happening rather than doing it himself or condoning it? he's far from condoning it.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:10 (twenty years ago)

Yes, you're right. Am I uncomfortable with this? Yeah, in large part due to the arbitrariness of the defintion (if you can even call it a "definition"). Bleh.

xpost

NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:10 (twenty years ago)

sorry this is getting a bit confusing, I meant, he is criticising old rockism for doing that.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:12 (twenty years ago)

i think he means to hate on fiona apple and kanye at the exact moment that he criticizes the p&joppers for pigeonholing them rockistly. it is v confusing but that's my take.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:13 (twenty years ago)

i mean otherwise he's saying that people voted for a good record! so he's second-guessing *why* people voted for these records, but the whole exercise is a bit pointless if he thinks the records are good. 'right records; wrong reasons'?

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:16 (twenty years ago)

he hasn't heard a bunch of them by his own admission, though

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:18 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, plus it seems more a matter of aesthetics anyway, the actual sound of the records can't really be divorced from some of the stuff Simon is discussing, for better or worse, so it doesn't really matter a great deal if he's heard them or not.

Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:22 (twenty years ago)

'people voted for records which i haven't heard for reasons which I INFER are probably paternalistically racist and sexist, because the records COULD IN NO WAY merit the votes, and it stinks!'

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:23 (twenty years ago)

i found the k-punk piece quite readable, strangely, as mostly i dont. the subtext appears to be, 'pop isnt as good as it was', but, not as a critical response, but as a...almost manifesto type response. 'pop doesnt matter in the way it did', 'pop means more than just good records'

theres a lot to be said for this, i agree. but i think in order to accept this kind of viewpoint, you have to divorce this from music entirely, and make it entirely sociocontextual. ok, i mean, all this really comes down to is "when i were a lad we had to entertain usself wi' matchsticks, an we were happy", and now there are a dizzying array of non-music 'options'. this is fairly standard though, and easily agreed with

perhaps he is really saying, 'pop music is less important now'. i can see this, but i dont see how it really makes any difference whether it is arctic monkeys or girls aloud. ie, arctic monkeys are neither sympton nor cause

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:25 (twenty years ago)

this is the theory simplied:

Trad Rockists: NPR Rock [see recent ILM thread: look at WXPN Top 50 of 2005 for a good idea of what is meant] + NME Bands = media over exposed music reliant on traditional song structures. Music likely to be favoured on playlists on Xfm and 6 Music in the UK or NPR radio stations in the US.

Vs

Interesting soundscapes:

Art-Metal, Post-Punk, Progressive rock, ambient, Industrial, Shoegazer, Experimental Electronics, Avant Jazz, Psychedelic/ Space Rock, Post Rock, Dubstep, Black Metal, Avant-Prog, Techno, Microhouse, electro, synthpop, avant hip hop, techstep jungle etc

[music unlikely to heard on 6 music playlists, or marginalized at best]

DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:26 (twenty years ago)

sorry, that should say 'pop SHOULD mean more than good records' in the first paragraph

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:27 (twenty years ago)

martian, what on earth are you talking about?

terry lennox. (gareth), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:28 (twenty years ago)

nearly everything in your 2nd category is also reliant on song structures, Martian.

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:29 (twenty years ago)

Martian, you do realize that NPR is a talk radio station, right?

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:30 (twenty years ago)

actually not strictly true--they do have some music programming. but it's not a music station, per se, by any means

Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:31 (twenty years ago)

you don't understand the theory ! Matos

second category is reliant on sounds and soundscapes NOT words and conventional songs that fit into radio playlist agendas

I meant radio stations like WXPN, look at their music charts.

DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:36 (twenty years ago)

matos the theory is 'music dj martian likes' vs 'music dj martian doesn't like'.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:38 (twenty years ago)

This Gareth, from Blissblog:

Looking at the grand decades-spanning scheme of American critical consensus, there’s a sense in which even art-rock is marginalized (the relatively low presence and this year and every year of instrumental or mostly-intrumental abstraction--prog, fusion, ambient, industrial and the more abstract forms of postpunk, post-rock, experimental electronics; the abiding suspicion of artifice in re. glam or New Pop). See, rather than art-rock, what the critically esteemed stuff really is, most of it, it's lit-rock: music as dramatic backdrop to words. Stuff that is purely, sheerly sonic is still felt to be de trop, suspect because self-indulgent, decadent, music for music's sake, mere ear candy with no "improving" aspect. And stuff where there are words but they're "inane" or incidental is completely marginalized (look at the almost-utter non-presence of functional dance music, the near-absence of non-auteurist, non-socially redeeming hip hop).

DJ Martian (djmartian), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:38 (twenty years ago)

he really nails his point home with all the specific examples and citations.

The Man Without Shadow (Enrique), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:41 (twenty years ago)

"And stuff where there are words but they're "inane" or incidental is completely marginalized (look at the almost-utter non-presence of functional dance music, the near-absence of non-auteurist, non-socially redeeming hip hop)." Reynolds from his blog

"For most of the past decade, street Rap and R&B has been the engine of Pop culture, both in its pure form and various teenybop dilutions. Give or take a gem – Amerie’s ‘1 Thing’, Three Six Mafia’s ‘Stay Fly’, Kanye West’s ‘Addiction’ and ‘Crack Music’ – its remorseless rate of innovation stalled this year. And formal advance was always the compensation for its counter-revolutionary content of bling and booty-worship." Reynolds from Frieze

So if Reynolds doesn't like a supposed emphasis on lyrics, why does he in Frieze attack hiphop lyrics as counter-revolutionary, and on his blog he recently criticized them as well. But then in his latest posting he seem to be taking folks to task for not including such allegedly non-auteurist hiphop in their p & j ballots.

So what kind of hiphop is acceptable under nu-rockism? When can hiphop lyrics be discussed under nu-rockism? I mean if I am gonna get with his program and not endorse popism, and take the good but not the bad aspects of rockism, and call it nu-rockism, well then...
I give up...

curmudgeon (DC Steve), Thursday, 2 February 2006 16:42 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.