For what it's worth I'm listening to the Poison Girls right now and they're one of the best punk groups ever from what I'm thinking, and half the songs are gentle ballads sung by a woman who rivals Marianne Faithful for general expression!
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:06 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
I've never heard the Poison Girls, but you say they're punk from what you're thinking. Well, you must be thinking something that we can comprehend and you feel is a viable definition of punk or else you wouldn't have said that word to us.
So yeah, I can see why the KLF are punk conceptually (they poop on rules and all that). But the point remains that there's good reason to attempt to define punk, otherwise it would be worthless superword to throw around. Superword means we debate, not that there's no answers.
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:36 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
It's certainly contextual (friends/labelmates of Crass, noted anarchists, etc.). But then again Crass themselves tried all sorts of styles and approaches under the rubric and anarchism doesn't have to mean sounding like the Sex Pistols (or whoever).
Superwords are fun (hey! that word!) to throw around. That's why I'm bemused by the fact that apparently Avril Lavigne is hated because she claims she's punk. Is that really a reason to hate?
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:47 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
Actually, wait. When I was 18 I was a bitter music-nazi who would have hated her punk co-option and been trying to make myself like free jazz. I was so stupid then.
― Anthony Miccio, Tuesday, 12 November 2002 19:51 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 20:12 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Tuesday, 12 November 2002 21:40 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
This thread still hasn't gotten into social category.
So here goes. There are two types of people in the world, Pseudointellectuals and Real Intellectuals. Pseudointellectuals talk about Chuck Eddy's motives, while Real Intellectuals talk about Chuck Eddy's ideas. OK, I'm being rough, and Jody and Dave Q probably will talk about both. And I certainly don't think that discussion of motives should be taken off the intellectual table. But come on. Most people who talk about Chuck's motives do so as a way of evading his ideas. [More to come.]
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 18 November 2002 08:59 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― dave q, Monday, 18 November 2002 15:57 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― J (Jay), Monday, 18 November 2002 19:14 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
As far as social category goes though, I'm usually not comfortable with them. People who define themselves as part of a group usually feel the need to live up to some outside standard, and therefore might ignore their personal tastes. The only times I don't flinch are when people say it with some humor (i.e., "oh god, look at my record collection. I am SO emo.") or when their definition is rather broad. I know we all do it, but it's dangerous to get hung up on it. I think most of the time Chuck uses it to explain why people's tastes get messed up.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 00:40 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
wittgenstenisms flounder like lenored blouses in a warm breeze
but i like this superword thing
― a-33 (CDT GCSE only), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 01:10 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
Anthony this is the worst thing I have ever heard you say. Mainly because it is philosophically either indefensible or trivial depending on how you approach it. What does it mean for a person to have taste except as it relates to the taste of others? Furthermore, who here doesn't need to live up to some outside standard (many, usually)? I wear nice clothes to work and speak to people in a certain way and address friends a different way and cut my hair so I look fresh and etc.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 06:32 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― dave q, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:35 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:39 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― dave q, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 07:46 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 15:49 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:05 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Ben Williams, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:06 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:23 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:35 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:44 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:44 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:50 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Ben Williams, Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:50 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:52 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 16:56 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
I mean, we can safely assume indie rock is not a pastry or an interesting new way to whittle. There for the definition of indie rock must exist, lest people think we're talking about pastries. However, if someone thinks ECM is indie-rock, there's logic to it. And if somebody is trying to say "Britney" is indie for some god-unknown reason, there might be logic to that too. But since no logic would define Millard Fillmore as "indie rock" we can assume the definition of Indie Rock would exclude Millard Fillmore.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:07 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:08 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
If there were no social categories, then everyone wouldn't all be individuals, rather we would all be the same, or at least unable to distinguish if we were individuals.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:14 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:16 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:17 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Yancey (ystrickler), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:20 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
they can't be punker than the punkest punk cz that's me
― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:22 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Tuesday, 19 November 2002 17:24 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
I blame Dick Hebdige.
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 28 November 2002 13:52 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Movie critics don't make value judgments based on the audience's class/ethnicity/gender.
Yes they do - well, change "based on" to "taking into account," and they do. They may not be aware of it, though. Maybe they're not as thoughtful as music critics. (Should probably change that to "maybe they're even more thoughtless than music critics.") But smart movie critics like Otis Ferguson and Manny Farber and Andrew Sarris didn't ignore the relation between taste and social category.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Thursday, 26 December 2002 05:22 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
I don't dislike social category as an issue. I do think it tends to be deployed in somewhat kneejerk fashion in music criticism. To wit: what the "working class" like (or rather are presumed to like) is usually valorized as good, real and authentic (because it questions and/or unmasks society's status quo through some combination of primitivism and montage effects), and what the "middle class" like (or rather are presumed to like) is usually dismissed as bad, fake and inauthentic (because it upholds the status quo through some combination of "lightness" and holistic investment in "quality"). Often class is invoked as a guarantor of value in itself; the question of who exactly constitutes the classes in question is rarely examined, or indeed whether there are any other classes besides this convenient binary. I mentioned Dick Hebdige because he created what has proven to be a very durable paradigm along these lines, one that still holds conscious or unconscious sway over British music critics (but not at all among Americans) who did a bit of Cult Studs at some point in their lives...
I haven't read Otis Ferguson and Manny Farber. I do read Andrew Sarris in the Observer, and can't say I've ever noticed social category playing much of a role in his work. But I'm not familiar with anything like its entirety. I'm not so well versed in movie criticism in general, but I've read a fair bit and issues of class just don't seem to be nearly as prevalent--although it might be fair to say that the difference between taking class into account and basing judgements on it is exactly what I was thinking of...
I think there's actually a simple reason why music critics tend to be more concerned with social category than movie critics (if you'll allow me to maintain that for a moment longer), which is that music is used much more as a marker of personal identity than movies are. Kids (other than movie geeks) don't get into fights at school over tribal identification with Spielberg vs. Scorcese.
I just wish the treatment was bit more sophisticated sometimes...
― Ben Williams, Thursday, 26 December 2002 20:08 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
The best Ferguson is the out-of-print Film Criticism of Otis Ferguson, rather than the in-print Otis Ferguson Reader. The classic (and only, as far as I know) Farber collection is Negative Space, also called Movies. My complaint - "wouldn't play what they couldn't justify" - is one that Ferguson and Farber would recognize very well.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Thursday, 26 December 2002 22:09 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Tim, did you ever do this, ever make your map? Did you post it?
Well, in regards to social category and punk, here's a big one. Is punk the apocalypse or the idealists built to survive it? Iggy Pop or Jello Biafra? Johnny Rotten or Ian MacKaye? If the interview from Popped still stands, then Kogan would vote for the nihilists. But Joe Strummer said in SPIN that nobody's punker than Fugazi, so there's one strong vote for the other side. Since I personally prefer broad definitions, I tend to think of punk basically means someone ACTIVELY outside of the mainstream who takes pride in the middle finger and/or the electric guitar.
But Anthony, to be actively outside the mainstream is such a mainstream ideal. "Middle finger" and "electric guitar" are hardly relegated to the fringes. Johnny Rotten comes from the main stream of modern life more than Celine Dion does. Iggy declared himself the mainstream in his very first stanza. It's 1969, OK, all across the USA, another year for me and you, another year with nothing to do. So here we are. I speak for you whether you listen or not. In every single person is a Slim Shady lurkin'. He could be workin' at Burger King, spittin' on your onion rings, or outside in the parking lot, circling, screaming "I don't give a fuck," with his windows down and his system up. So will the real Shady please stand up and put one of those fingers on each hand up and be proud to be out of your mind and out of control, and one more time, loud as you can, how does it go? But notice how you split up against yourself, how your inner Shady is spitting on your own onions, and anyway, I'm the real Slim Shady, and all you other Shadies are just imitating. I was Johnny Rotten before Johnny Rotten was. No one does Kogan like Kogan. So:
Is punk the apocalypse or the idealists built to survive it?
Both, both, both at once, each against the other, each embracing the other. Punk is (among many other things) the conflict between the apocalypse and the survivors. And this conflict can be within a person as well as between people. This is what Tracer is getting at, I think. Iggy and Johnny are idealists, not nihilists. The distinction you should be going for is between two different ways of using ideals: (1) To hold the ideal up against a world in order to keep prodding that world, tearing at it; the ideal is a Memphis that you can never get to, a Johanna that you can never have, but you use 'em to prod and pummel poor Mobile and Louise, because you like to pummel and tear, even or especially if you yourself are the one being torn; turn around bitch, I've got a use for you. Come and be my enemy, so I can love you too. Besides, you've got nothing better to do, and I'm bored. (2) As a practical guide for creating and correcting an ongoing structure (such as ILx) in which interesting people can pummel and tear and bond with each other.
(I developed the concept Superword to explain Dylan's "Memphis Blues Again" and "Visions of Johanna," took it from there to genre.) (Movie double bill: From Here to Eternity and From There to Genre.)
(The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and A Farewell to Arms.)
See, I would say you need a DAMN wide net to harness a superword, but if it literally meant ANYTHING, than why would you say it at all?
Anthony, you're running off the rails here, and also changing the subject, since no one said that it could mean anything. You don't need a harness and net to constrain a dolphin from flying to the moon.
punk rock /= punk
Don't know if you mean (1) that "punk rock" and "punk" are different concepts ("Yum, that chocolate eclair à la dead squirrel is so punk rock." "No, it's merely punk") or (2) that punk rock isn't very punk, or isn't punk enough, or isn't as punk as some other things. Would you elaborate?
Please remember I think that a definition of a superword must be extremely broad. I mean, we can safely assume indie rock is not a pastry or an interesting new way to whittle. Therefore the definition of indie rock must exist, lest people think we're talking about pastries.
They won't no matter what, since they know that pastries are punk rock, not indie. And "definition" isn't the word you're looking for. "Meaning," perhaps? But you're wrong no matter what word you use (see floundering W's below). But even if you were right, I don't see that you're addressing the topic at hand. For instance, if I differentiate myself by saying "Michael Jackson is punk but the Gang of Four aren't," it's simply beside the point for you to say, "But very broadly speaking, you and the Gang of Four fan mean enough of the same thing by 'punk' to prevent either of you from mistaking it for tuna fish." I'm sure that I and the Gang of Four fan have lots in common - otherwise, I wouldn't be trying to distinguish myself from him! - but what's at issue is where he and I disagree. And I'm arguing that if we didn't disagree on how to apply "punk rock," the term would be much less useful.
(Those teacher's pets in Gang of Four ask, "Is this so private, our struggle in the bedroom?" I don't know, is it? Listen to "Billie Jean" and "Dirty Diana" and find out. Or "Under My Thumb" and "Back Street Girl.")
wittgensteinisms flounder like lenored blouses in a warm breeze.
I'll stop imitating. Here's the real Slim Wittgy:
Imagine someone's saying: "All tools serve to modify something. Thus the hammer modifies the position of the nail, the saw the shape of the board, and so on." - And what is modified by the rule, the glue-pot, the nails? - "Our knowledge of a thing's length, the temperature of the glue, and the solidity of the box." - Would anything be gained by this assimilation of expressions?
Consider for example the proceedings we call "games." I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all? - Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games'" - but look and see whether there is anything common to all. - For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look! - Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences to the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball-games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost. - Are they all "amusing"? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear.
And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
But if someone wished to say: "There is something common to all these constructions - namely the disjunction of their common properties" - I should reply: Now you are only playing with words. One might as well say: "Something runs through the whole thread - namely the continuous overlapping of those fibres."
For how is the concept of a game bounded? What still counts as a game and what no longer does? Can you give the boundary? No. You can draw one; for none so far has been drawn. (But that never troubled you before when you used the word "game.")
"But then the use of the word is unregulated, the 'game' we play with it is unregulated." - It is not everywhere circumscribed by rules; but no more are there any rules for how high one throws the ball in tennis, or how hard; yet tennis is a game for all that and has rules too.
I've quoted all these for Anthony's benefit, since they ought to take care of his concerns, unless he's pathologically addicted to the Problem Of Universals. But as Wittgenstein himself would have pointed out, the ideas I've just quoted don't have any consequences one way or the other for how you yourself might use the words "tool" and "game," don't argue for preserving standard usage or modifying it. And they don't speak at all to my point, which is that standard usage of a term like "punk rock" includes our disagreeing over its usage, and that such disagreements are a creative, constructive, normal, everyday use of language. They're not a flaw, not a problem to be stopped. Agreement doesn't have to be the goal. (Check the Sociology of Pop thread, where I make a similar point about value judgments in general, not just about Superwords.)
[More to come. Ha!]
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Saturday, 11 January 2003 03:14 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Have you encountered my relating of superword to supersounds theory cf. Reynolds on the "Amen" break in Energy Flash? I forgot where I posted it.
― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 11 January 2003 04:15 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
It's been so long since I read this thread that I can't really remember what's being argued though.
― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Saturday, 11 January 2003 17:32 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Don Allred, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 02:12 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Don Allred, Tuesday, 14 January 2003 02:21 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
Protestant Ethic = through the grace of God, if you're one of the elect, your actions, including your leisure-time pursuits, will serve a useful social and moral purpose.
rebel boys on the streets = the electundermining the capitalist system = serving a useful social and moral purpose
By the way, I have nothing against art or Frank serving useful social and moral purposes. I just don't like the clampdown that comes into effect when "serving a social and moral purpose" is tied to a vision in which (1) the capitalist world is fundamentally corrupt and all-engulfing (= puritan conception that worldliness is fundamentally corrupt); (2) if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem, so if you're not actively undermining capitalism, you're reinforcing it; (3) since your actions should serve a useful social and moral purpose, and since your actions - every single one of them - either undermine or reinforce capitalism, you should endeavor to make all your actions undermine capitalism; so (4) these people wouldn't play what they couldn't justify, and they have to justify their playtime and that of the people they champion by saying it undermines capitalism. So if some gutter punks are getting fucked up and going wild, and this rocks, by golly it better undermine capitalism too.
However, in r'n'r, the Protestant Ethic isn't so much the committed leftist's attempt to undermine capitalism as it is the hipster-freak-punk's attempt to maintain his vision of himself as outside of the mainstream; the ethic in full effect tells him that any action moves you either towards or away from the mainstream. Of course, not all punks buy into this (as a matter of fact, before punk became a movement, one thing that distinguished proto-punk-types from the freaks was that the punks didn't buy into the counterculture's vision of itself as a counterculture; but that was back in the days when punk = intelligent), just as not all leftists buy into the idea of capitalism as an all-engulfing system, or the idea that if you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.
The r'n'r Prot Ethic has interesting permutations: e.g. a full-time sex-drugs-and-r'n'r funster is still a puritan (undermining the prot ethic = serving a useful social and moral purpose); if he's attempting to purify rock'n'roll, cure it of its social pretensions and make it full fun like in the nonexistent good old days, he's still only playing what he can justify, even if he's flip-flopped the terms so that full-time morality = seven-day weekend.
A little bit of Prot Ethic is better than none, I think; it can be useful for pushing words into Superwords. If to be a freak or a punk you have to be outside of society, then "freak" and "punk" will always keep slipping from your grasp, will dart on ahead while you try to chase them. Any and every freak/punk will potentially fall short, will always be playing catch-up.
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:20 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s (mark s), Monday, 10 February 2003 17:29 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Luc S., Monday, 10 February 2003 19:33 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Cozen (Cozen), Monday, 10 February 2003 21:56 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Don Allred, Tuesday, 11 February 2003 03:26 (fourteen years ago) Permalink
― Frank Kogan (Frank Kogan), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:24 (eleven years ago) Permalink
― Cee Bee (Cee Bee), Tuesday, 9 May 2006 16:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink