― I.M. (I.M.), Saturday, 5 March 2005 19:36 (nineteen years ago) link
Intro to the 1981 box, 1st Edition:
My first idea of how to introduce this set was to start with a question: "what do we do when we realise Pandora's box is never going to shut?" I wanted to persuade you that the music heard on this set provides one answer to that question: if our belief in fundamental order is shaken, we resolve to make a beautiful mess. I wanted to argue that a lot of this music is part of a lineage of noble "outré" and progressive popular art made by people trying to restore hope and meaning amidst derelict shells of classicism, modernism, and post-modernism. I would also have tried to say something pithy regarding the historical context of this music, about how the shattering of the notion of monolithic cultures made music like this possible, and necessary; and about Thatcher, Reagan, suburbs, post-industrial economics, the dole, the rise of fundamentalism and yuppiedom and anti-disco rockism.But the truth is, I was in diapers in 1981. As far as outré music is concerned, I have less than a decade of experience with the stuff. My parents were hippies spinning Joni Mitchell and James Taylor records in the '80s. They imbued me with a sense that music was deeply important, but didn't have much of its sonic breadth to share. I "know" about as much about music as could be expected of any musically obsessed twenty-four year old who spent high-school in the School of Indie Rock, owns only a couple hundred jazz records, a hundred (predictable) hip-hop records, overuses Skip James on mixes, and only heard his first Talking Heads album as a junior in high school. What I mean is: I still function musically primarily on passion, not knowledge. I'm confident about my abilities to put together a good mix for just about any tastes; do a decent radio show; and hold my own with young know-it-all record clerks in Chicago. But I don't know enough to write cool, authoritative, impressively linernotish liner notes. The fact that I know all this music after-the-fact or "second hand" should affect the quality of the music; an attempt to give you the storytelling goods secondhand would probably do a disservice to the story.This set inevitably reflects my biases as its curator; but I hope it is deep and wide enough to allow you to decide what the "best," "most important," "coolest" sounds are. In fact, I realise you may even disagree with me that 1981 is worth all the trouble. Personally, I think something was happening from about 1978 to 1982 that is noteworthy in the history of pop music. I think there was an earnest expansiveness and playfulness regarding the boundaries (or absence thereof) between genres and between "art" and "pop". Nothing I could say will convince you--but the music might.
I admit that a portion of these tracks are undeniably dated (if charmingly so,) and will probably trigger nostalgia even if you've never heard them. Progressive (in pop terms) as these tracks were at the time, they established the paradigm for the infamous "sound of the 80s," and by extension the cartoonish aesthetic currently revered by college students too young to actually remember the decade. I resisted investigating many of the bands I knew as pathetic yuppie crooners on my older sister's radio in the mid-80s for years; in their early incarnations, at least, some of those bands have become my favourites. The majority of the music of this particular 1981, however, would set a fire were it released today; the paradigm they operated within (or without) was expansive enough that a lot of the best "progressive" music is still exploring it today (in just the way that many of these bands can be said to have been working in virtual homage to Can or the Velvet Underground).Investigating threads of Influence and innovation; glowing about "prescience;" and dividing the thieves from the tributaries arguably enhances musical enjoyment. But I hope you'll ultimately take this music on its own terms. I came into my interest in the "post-punk period" slowly; I bought the hype young that punk was the Sex Pistols, which I didn't especially like, and therefore skipped ahead to Yo La Tengo and the Pixies. It was only after I stumbled through a couple dozen records that I started to notice common years popping up. My subsequent effort to consciously put together a picture of the movement (and my appreciation of the music as a cultural artifact) came only after I first felt the picture. Even after as work-like a relationship as I've had to this music after spending countless man-hours putting this set together, I still hear it foremostly in the visceral way that I did when I knew nothing of its history.On to the indisputable facts: 395 tracks, 345 bands, almost 21 hours of sound, spanning most elements of the post-punk, art-pop, new wave, hardcore, no wave, d.i.y., new romantic, power-pop, dancepunk, art-punk and electropop spheres. Nine of the discs are audio CDs, carefully selected and sequenced along sonic or emotional themes. The tenth disc is an mp3 "appendix" containing tracks by 130-plus bands that didn't fit the main mixes, most of whom are just as good as those on the main CDs. For some of you, there is little new to you here. For a good many, this may be all the "post-punk" you'll ever want. I don't need to change your life, I just want to play you some music; so if you enjoy any of it, my effort has been worthwhile. It is my secret hope, however, that for a few of you, this will be another step toward deep, passionate addiction to music you might not have known existed. Music does not truly exist without both passionate playing and passionate listening; you make music out of noise by listening well.
― I.M. (I.M.), Saturday, 5 March 2005 19:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 5 March 2005 20:41 (nineteen years ago) link
― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 20:49 (nineteen years ago) link
One could -- if one wanted to -- create an alternate 1981 set that removes many tracks in favor of a slew of R'n'B selections, but understandably that would reflect the bias of the creator as much as this set does. The whole *point* is that it is biased. (Something like the original Nuggets was biased after all.)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Saturday, 5 March 2005 20:56 (nineteen years ago) link
Lovebug -- indeed there were. And hip-hop, and avant garde, and probably Nashville Country for all I know. But this box was never intended to be "the" "objective" story of 1981. I definitely indended to have a limited (but not too limited) scope. I definitely didn't mean to offend anyone by leaving things out--I just figured my scope was one that could use some in-depth anthologising, and it happens to reflect my favourite sort of music going on at the time.
― I.M. (I.M.), Saturday, 5 March 2005 20:58 (nineteen years ago) link
Were I to put my money where my mouth is, I'd assemble the early 80s R&B/rap version of your box. As if. Your anthology is an achievement!
― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 21:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Saturday, 5 March 2005 21:40 (nineteen years ago) link
I Love Music CDR700Go! Collections
A series of other single-year retrospectives have been given birth in recent years by the denizens of the music critic circle-jerk I Love Music, who have generated an entire inventory of single-disc mp3 mixes, with listings accessible in the message board's archives. Assembled by folks like Seattle Weekly editor Michaelangelo Matos, All Music Guide contributor Andy Kellman, and former Pitchfork rabblerouser Chris Ott, most are less motivated by personal taste than a desire to most accurately document the calendar year, above and below ground. Hence, the 1976 disc makes room for both the Buzzcocks and "Disco Duck", and Barry Manilow and Pere Ubu are compilation flatmates for the first-- and probably last-- time. Waiving the right to selective hindsight makes the discs great archeological fodder; on random, they play like great radio stations with extreme microprogramming.
Hmmm, can't imagine what year(s) the statement in bold is referring to... *whistles*
― donut debonair (donut), Saturday, 5 March 2005 21:54 (nineteen years ago) link
I'm not sure I agree that things were as segregated then as they might seem, and I certainly don't agree that post-punk was particularly "rockist" or anti-disco---a large portion of this stuff is very dance-oriented, often with straight-up disco beats. Call it cultural imperialism, call it cooption--I think a lot of these musicians (especially in England) were very broad-minded, heavily immersed in jamaican musics, American funk, and, I suspect, a good deal of African music (both Afrobeat-ish/High-life and traditional forms) as well as a broad swath of "white" music. I guess I'm one to tend to cut arguments about "authenticity" and "originality" down quickly, because they tend to insult just about everyone involved (supposed "originators" and accused "coopters") and paint everything into tight little corners. I'm certain there was plenty of posing and faking and hanging-on, but I prefer to focus on the cooperative, the joyous, the fun. I think there was a lot of play back and forth between the "white" music (apparently what is on my set, though many musicians involved were not racially white) and "black" music at the time--white kids were stealing calypso beats but adding Stockhausen splicing and Scratch Perry echoes, black kids were sampling Liquid Liquid and Tom Tom Club, early goth-tinged electro-pop was providing production aesthetics for hip hop, and on and on. There are very few outright Elvises on this set. I'd love it if you did "the" "other" 1981--I'd love to see all kinds of spheres anthologised in this fashion, and I'd love to put them all in a big CD changer and hit "random". It'd be a lot of fun.
― I.M. (I.M.), Saturday, 5 March 2005 22:23 (nineteen years ago) link
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 02:48 (nineteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:45 (nineteen years ago) link
― j-dizzle, Sunday, 6 March 2005 03:53 (nineteen years ago) link
This thing about Elvis and black music is a canard. To my ears, Elvis was equally influenced by country music and Dean Martin as he was by Big Mama Thornton. But that's a whole nother discussion.
Again, I'm not carping or complaining. This set is a public service.
― lovebug starski (lovebug starski), Sunday, 6 March 2005 04:12 (nineteen years ago) link
― Matos-Webster Dictionary (M Matos), Sunday, 6 March 2005 04:22 (nineteen years ago) link
I really appreciate your perspective. What you're saying is fascinating to me, actually--in fact, what you say confirms my suspicions about the ways in which my views might be skewed by knowing the whole era/sphere pretty much from the music only. It doesn't surprise me at all, really, that the musicians may have been able to make leaps that their audience were not. It seems a pretty common occurance that eclectic musicians are doomed to end up serving as "translators" for less eclectic fans, somehow making music said fans otherwise might not try easily digested. It's a shame to think this was the case even in so wide-ranging a sphere as the "post-punk" milieu; it's been my complaint about all this current "dance-punk"/"post-punk revivalist" stuff: the bands involved may know their roots and their roots' roots (I'm in no position to say); but I've met many a young kid who simply feels he doesn't need PigBag, because he has his !!!. I'm ambivalent, because I think the best music is made by those who're most aware of their forbears but least worshipful of them; and like I said before, I deeply resist the concept that there's any "pure" music in the pop world.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 04:36 (nineteen years ago) link
$11.50 plus postage. It costs you what it costs me.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 04:38 (nineteen years ago) link
The vast majority of the stuff on this thing is not new to me, but as a collector of the era I gotta make sure I cover all the bases. Nice to see you've got some good old fashioned early 4AD stuff in there, too!
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:09 (nineteen years ago) link
Several people called Mark emailed me, but your email address here isn't on my list.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:17 (nineteen years ago) link
― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:19 (nineteen years ago) link
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:20 (nineteen years ago) link
I've got a Gary at an .au email, so I think you're in ; )
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:21 (nineteen years ago) link
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:22 (nineteen years ago) link
i didn't get a reply though...
i was 18 in 1981. its kind of a "out of home go crazy" year for me.
― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:32 (nineteen years ago) link
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:41 (nineteen years ago) link
Hmm. Does your last name start with an L? I've got the reply I sent you in my "sent" box, Thursday 10:21 pm
Bimble ---
Very sorry, friend. I don't know how I could've missed it if I got it.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:55 (nineteen years ago) link
― Stormy Davis (diamond), Sunday, 6 March 2005 05:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:02 (nineteen years ago) link
Yeah, I've got you, too. Both you and Mully were amongst the very first few, sent you a reply 10 minutes before Mully. I hope this Lycos thing is reliable. . . I've taken emails from 65 people here, and I've replied to every one of them, by my account. . .
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:11 (nineteen years ago) link
― Stormy Davis (diamond), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:11 (nineteen years ago) link
I admit I don't share the nostalgia for vinyl of many; nor do I have any evidence that, on your average player, it is a "superior" format. Honestly, when kids spinning shit over thrift store systems tell me that, I have to try hard not to laugh. I do prefer vinyl sleeves, obviously (LP anyway). That said, when something's only available on vinyl, that's how I'll get it if I need it. I tend to avoid ammassing too much vinyl, though, because it takes up so much space. I'm able to keep about 2,000 CDs in nice black binders in a locker (literally a high scool locker) in my closet; I couldn't live in my place if I had 2,000 LPs.
Conversely, I'm a huge fan of the democratising effect of the CD-R. Talk about "it was easy, it was cheap"! Sure, some store-bought CD-R with one of those horrible "mini-cases" will make an awful artefact; but done right, they can be reasonably attractive.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:17 (nineteen years ago) link
Anyway, thanks again. Good luck with the deluge of e-mail. Hopefully, nothing crashes! Oh, and if you are able to add me to a waiting list sometime in the next year or two, that would be awesome!
― joel nelson, Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:26 (nineteen years ago) link
― Stormy Davis (diamond), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:27 (nineteen years ago) link
― joel nelson, Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:32 (nineteen years ago) link
Thanks so much. Really, the kindness everyone who's contacte me has shown has been inspirational. I honestly posted here a bit trepedatiously--I'd heard rather lofty things about the place, and had a minor notion I'd get told what poor choices I'd made, what I'd missed, etc. To a (wo)man, from music editors to teenaged kids, everyone has been very complimentary. I hope everyone feels the same way when they've been digesting the mixes!
Re: the physical object, yeah, I'll always want one. Truth is, at this point, I've begun thinking of the actual discs as permanent "back-ups". I got a 250GB HD about a year and a half ago, and a 100GB portable mp3 player about six months ago, and they've radically changed the way I listen to my music (for the better). It's a far cry from the romanticism of turning the LP over halfway through, but gosh--being able to put a lifetime of music *on random* is pretty awe-inspiring. It's made me feel that my constant rationalisation for my record-buying habits---that I was "building a library" to last a lifetime---wasn't just a convenient justification. I really do love it all, things I haven't heard in years. I'm a traditionalist in many, many ways--but I'm becoming a modernist in regards to music making/listening technology. Hell, the fact that I've been able to make my own little records (ha, CDs) as easily as I might've kept a sketchbook---there's just nothing bad about that I can see.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:34 (nineteen years ago) link
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:37 (nineteen years ago) link
I definitely share the ambivalence. I wonder if "we"--those like us, from about the age 20 through maybe 60--have the best of both worlds, a combination that will probably be lost on younger kids. I have an aversion to the concept of iTunes that borders on irrational; but younger kids might argue correctly that we're materialists to a fault. I'm not sure who's right, but I do enjoy the "personal archaeology" of looking through my physically-housed music. I like that I have that option, even if I rarely excersise it these days.
You know whos opinion I'd love to hear/read on all this? Brian Eno. Talk about a guy who's managed to be a revolutionary modernist/post-modernist/technologist and yet maintain a level of craftsmanship that almost only comes through a visceral understanding of the music-making process.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:40 (nineteen years ago) link
Eeep. You probably won't like me much--I made an edit of "Raindance". I agree it's a great track, fantastic atmosphere and very underrated, but I wanted to get as many artists represented as possible (and let people seek out the full versions of the tracks I edited, if they'd like). I still left about 5 minutes of the track ; )
I hope no one will mind that I did an edit of Crispy Ambulance's "The Presence".
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:43 (nineteen years ago) link
― joel nelson (joel nelson), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:48 (nineteen years ago) link
Crispy Ambulance is my second fave band ever, but the Presence is the kind of song you can do an edit of and it wouldn't be too offensive. I can understand where you were coming from. Don't worry about it. Remember I'm here to hear the stuff I HAVEN'T heard.
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:54 (nineteen years ago) link
Yep, I got yours this time. Did you get my reply?
For vinyl transfers, I'm not very high-tech, I admit. I just use Soundforge for pretty much all my wav capturing/editing. Then I manually clean clicks and pops, if it's close to a clean rip. I don't trust "auto" cleaning filters--even running Soundforge's "pop" seeker, it almost always finds elements that aren't clicks/pops. So it's just the tedious task of listening close and watching close--but I like looking at waveforms, so it's ok. If the vinyl is irretrevably vinylly, then I just leave it that way.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea---about 15% of the stuff in this set is indeed mp3-sourced or from friends' vinyl. I'm too young to have been "in the right place at the right time," or to have the money to afford multi-hundre-dollar 7"s. And some of the tracks (mainly on the 'Cassette' mix) are sourced from Chuck Warner's rips. I tried to limit the set only to what I owned for a while, but there were some great things I just didn't want to leave out. The vast majority, for better or worse, I've spent the money on over the years.
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:57 (nineteen years ago) link
I only did edits in very judicious ways. Where I could, I even pulled off "seamless" edits, rather than resorting to fade-outs, etc.
I've never met anyone whose second favourite band was Crispy Ambulance before. Are you a big Crepescule/Fac Bel fan in general?
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― Stormy Davis (diamond), Sunday, 6 March 2005 06:59 (nineteen years ago) link
― joel nelson (joel nelson), Sunday, 6 March 2005 07:00 (nineteen years ago) link
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 07:04 (nineteen years ago) link
― I.M. (I.M.), Sunday, 6 March 2005 07:07 (nineteen years ago) link
interesting peeps have responses to the mixes themselves. the ilm cdrgo's being mp3 discs tends to make them "resources" rather than playlists i think (i rarely listen to 10 hours at a go...nate's discs are an exception as they work as folders) so your decision to go with 80 min discs entices this response...deliberate?
― mullygrubbr (bulbs), Sunday, 6 March 2005 07:12 (nineteen years ago) link
Fac Bel yes, Crepuscule some, but not as much.
― Bimble... (Bimble...), Sunday, 6 March 2005 07:15 (nineteen years ago) link