Television #3 Vs. Van Halen #73 Vs. Indie Music Cred Conditioning

Meanwhile, Van Halen. "Jump." That's where my knowledge of the band begins and ends. What do you bet some of these Pitchfork critics just haven't heard that much Van Halen, what with all their indie conditioning?

this is what Christgau said about Marquee Moon when it was new:

I know why people complain about Tom Verlaine's angst-ridden voice, but fuck that, I haven't had such intense pleasure from a new release since I got into Layla three months after it came out, and this took about fifteen seconds. The lyrics, which are in a demotic-philosophical mode ("I was listening/listening to the rain/I was hearing/hearing something else"), would carry this record alone; so would the guitar playing, as lyrical and piercing as Clapton or Garcia but totally unlike either. Yes, you bet it rocks. And no, I didn't believe they'd be able to do it on record because I thought this band's excitement was all in the live raveups. Turns out that's about a third of it. A+

so that "after the fact" bizness is a little ripe I think

What jsoulja is really saying is more like: there's something suspect about liking music that wasn't released in your life time (unless it's continued to get mainstream air-play), or that you in any way would have to make a slight effort to find out about. And I still think that's limiting.

I wonder where college radio fits into this? Lots of music that many people have said they first discovered by reading about it, I originally discovered on college radio (which may have given it added punch, since I never even suspected that a lot of it existed when I first heard it). On the other hand, the DJs, in many ways, functioned as critics. They talked about how great various people were, and even they didn't explicitly say so, the tone in which they simply announced certain artists left no doubt that they held them in high esteem.

And in fact, I think I did kid myself into thinking I liked certain things I didn't really like under the influence of college radio. But I also think that only last for about 2 or 3 years. I have since gone through the process of wanting to like certain things so much, and trying to like them (whatever that can mean), in other genres, but after I've been listening for a while, I tend to spit out what I don't like, and keep what I do like. (Larry Harlow's Salsa may be a great album, but I can't get into it, and don't like charanga in general.)

Look at the entire fucking Democratic Senate during the Clinton impeachment, the certification of the 2000 election, the signing of the Patriot Act, the drum beat to war with Iraq. Educated people quite often roll over for fear of being the only voice of dissent.

Some of these examples are just not comparable, since so much more was at risk than indie cred. Take the Iraq example in particular. The U.S. public had witnessed a large-scale terrorist attack on U.S. soil. I remember having a conversation with someone I know during the lead up to the war, someone I like, but someone who I'm sure is more trusting of the government than I am, and someone who doesn't do a whole lot of digging for news. She seemed genuinely afraid of this "45 minute" threat business.

I don't remember the Clinton impeachment very vividly--I don't think I was paying much attention to the news at the time--but I would think a lot of senators were out to save their jobs.

this thread is a dud no matter which side of the argument you take

OTM.

I don't believe our tastes develop in a social void, since we don't live in a social void; but I also don't think it's as simple as "I heard that Sonic Youth are really great and important, so I'm going to like them."

ewww ... Crazy Horse is the grossest 40oz. ... makes you shit like crazy in the morning.

thus,
merlot > crazy horse.

hot for teacher man!

hot for teacher!
m.

ps HOT SNAKES!!

Whereas Wolf Eyes' Gothic hoo-ha is NOT, of course.

I'm glad "Hot for Teacher" came up, the rhythm alone on this song is better than anything Television ever did.

I'm not talking about Bauhaus, jON.

"Whereas Wolf Eyes' scary oooh-ah is NOT, of course."

Before that I listened to really shitty music like Sublime and shit. Probably not the case for everyone, but if one is comparing the stuff they've plucked from the canon to the shitty-ass shit music they used to like then it will naturally be rated higher.

So your point is that any minority opinion is suspect?

Van Halen is the more significant band with the more significant cited album (when compared to Television and Marquee Moon), as are The Rolling Stones (Exile), as is Miles Davis (Bitches Brew), as are many of the artists (and cited albums) that fell far below TV on that 70s list. And I say TV made #3 because of indie cred posturing and nothing more.

If you have no idea what I'm talking about, forget it.

I think it may actually be as simple as that, though not at a conscious level. It's like that famous psychology experiment where they drew a bunch of lines on the board and asked a group of people, Which one is the longest? Everyone in the room except for one person (the subject) is a plant, and they all say that the second-longest line is in fact the longest. What is surprising is how often the subject will agree with them.

Did they consciously decide to pick the second-longest line? No, but they probably started to doubt their own eyesight, thinking "They are awfully close, maybe that other line is longer, it does look a bit longer, doesn't it?" If that phenomenon can happen with something as relatively cut-and-dried as comparing the lengths of lines, how much easier could it happen with something so subjective and taste-based as choosing which is the best album? After all, there are many ways to enjoy an album. Perhaps the listener learns to substitute a higher-order intellectual pleasure for the more direct pleasures they experienced in their less sophisticated listening period. Gradually they become convinced that those higher-order pleasures are more valuable than the direct ones. They may like the album more for what it represents to them than for how it sounds. Thus highly esteemed albums may be rarely played.

well, um, i do think that!

Yeahbut, that's a case where there is the social pressure of having people actually present. I think that's a very different experience than reading music criticism. But your example does have some bearing on what would happen when I group of people talk about music together.

After all, there are many ways to enjoy an album. Perhaps the listener learns to substitute a higher-order intellectual pleasure for the more direct pleasures they experienced in their less sophisticated listening period. Gradually they become convinced that those higher-order pleasures are more valuable than the direct ones.

Now this is kind of an interesting idea. Would it really be dishonest though if a person came to value that new "higher-order" pleasure more than the old immediate Top 40 AM radio ones? (I don't think you are saying that, but I think the original poster probably would.)

Couldn't a "higher order" more intellectual pleasure be something like, "Wow, how did they just go from a 13th to like some sort of rare version of the Indonesian slendro scale?" Or, "These guys were the first to use this model of synthesizer in a Norwegian experimental music context!"

Early Wire's great too, btw.

I'm old, though. When those records were coming out, they were like candy. You didn't have to make any intellectual leap of faith to like them.

Good question, but that would be a pretty grim peer group.

And I say TV made #3 because of indie cred posturing and nothing more.

That's not much of a theory, and every time anyone challenges you, you viciously insult them ... gee, can I give you a grant?

I get where you're going with this, but your attempts to psychoanalyze Pitchfork are pretty tossed-off compared to this guy's.

http://www.fasteddiesbullet.com/images/stookie1.jpg