Simon Reynolds - C or D

wrt Bataille - SR's pretty much OTM, but maybe this isn't much of a feat. The Accursed Share is a pretty transparant read, and SR's use of Bataille's idea of expenditure in understanding rave culture seems not only tenable, but downright obvious. Not to mention applicable to a helluva a lot of other music forms that I like.

Deleuze&Guattari are tougher nuts to crack. But are we gonna take D's word for it that we need to be intimately acquainted with the western philosophical cannon in order to "get" his work? Isn't this a question of degree? One can "get" Marx by reading the Communist Manifesto as a freshman in college. But it is then possible to "get" Marx on a whole different level after reading Hegel's Phenomenology. And then again after reading Kant's Critiques. And so on back to Plato. Doesn't all philosophy work this way? SR's use of D&G is on one level totally valid in that he's practicing what they preach, perhaps better than they do. Isn't Anti-Oedipus meant to be articulating a new form of language that rejects the illusion of an I/you or origin/end dichotomy and locates meaning/agency in a non- ending process? Our sense of subjectivity is not the true agent, but a by-product of the true agent, which is the uncontrollable flows of a desire which does not properly speaking belong to any one person, etc... SR fits in extraordinarily well here - his writing always strikes me as being unresolved, moments in an on-going thought. No conclusions, just endless digressions. Which is the kind of writing I'm drawn to. Which is why I'm drawn to philosophy (curious, Mr. Sutcliffe, what drew you to the field)... (btw - when any philosophy claims to be something else, a conclusion rather than just a drop in a still-flowing river, then it's getting too big for its britches... which is to say that I agree with Sterling)

So yeah, his approach to lit/cult crit is half-digested. Is it possible to fully digest any of this stuff? That would seem to suggest that there is a possible end to the philosophical/analytical process, which I find both unlikely and frightening to consider.

My only problem with SR's use of crit theory is that it often seems to obscure more than it reveals. He drops phrases like "desiring machines" without qualifying them. Which can be attributed to him not having reached some "proper" level of understanding of the theory he's using. Or it could just be that he on some level (mistakenly) subscribes to the same principles as Mr. Sutcliffe wrt having to know, unequivocably, what yer talking about before opening yer mouth. I'd rather see Reynolds take a few more risks, go out on a few more limbs, even if he does risk exposing his own shallow understanding of the theories he's using. I'd rather see him say why borrowing D&G's concept of "desiring machines" to describe a piece of music is relevant and get it "wrong," thus opening up a new meaning, than play it safe and leave us to wonder what in god's name he's talking about...

Also really like his conflicted insider/outsider relationship to the music scenes he reports on. Very similar to what anthropology was before it became less fashionable to actually do field studies - problematic, sure, but full of potential new ways of looking at both yourself and whatever the object of your study is...

Bizarrely I was just looking in the google archives tring to find my first message on Usenet and there is a 1994 message to me on AMA saying 'Momus is Scottish'.

Anyway, still don't rate any writers who seem to want to rehash Ian Penman, especially Reynolds, sorry. I hated Penman the first time round (Aside - is there a worse set of sleeve notes ever than Mutant Disco?). Rehashing that limiting style just seems like the sketch show parody of a Modern Review type editorial meeting where 'stylists' write polemics on why Habermas would obviously prefer Danni to Kylie and then ask how suprised people are that they have such outre opinions. See George Orwells comments on book reviewing which he says becomes the act of saying something interesting on something you dont care either way about (paraphrase - sorry).

I do like reading interesting writers, even if they are only writing interestingly (rather that saying interesting things) but I find neither of these applies to Reynolds. Thats why I always rated Paul Morely, in fact its why I like reading Tom E's stuff (mostly).

I hate to be pedantic, but this is exactly the kind of misunderstanding....

The sense in which people like Derrida and D&G mean concepts like endless digression and the impossibility of closure has nothing to do with the idea that it doesn't really matter how much you understand a concept before you use it, because hey man, we can never achieve perfect knowledge...

If anything it's the opposite. More about going all the way through Western rationality and coming out the other end with a radical sense of the bottomless pit that lies beneath it.... a more, not less, perfect knowledge by a matter of infinitesimal but not at all insignificant degree...

I think SR's use of theory is not too bad, all things considered. If anything I would fault him not for the theory he does use but for the theory he doesn't use (eg post-structuralism is rather weak as an edifice for thinking about class issues, as SR is wont to do in somewhat undeveloped fashion. It works for the purposes of blissed- out aesthetics, but not for considering quote unquote social movements a la Energy Flash....) My main complaint would be that he tends to get bogged down in heterogeneity=working-class=pop=women vs purism=middle-class=rockist=men binaries which are not all that interesting either way you flip them... Also that I think rave jargon and theory buzzwords mix v. poorly

Early period up till Sex Revolts : utter classic. After the move to NY and following the Death of Jungle: not as exciting.

desiring machine = very effective as rave jargon IMHO. Shit, they should name a brand of E after it.

I suspect that if one were to draw a venn diagram of reynolds' music tastes & mine, the intersecting bit would be the thinnest of thin slivers. He porbably hates most of the music I like, & would certainly not like my music. However, his writing is so smart & thought-provoking for the most part that for me he's an absolute classic. Blaming SR for his lamer imitators is like blaming hendrix for shit metal shredder twiddler rock guitarists. There are too few writers as gifted as he in the music press - almost none, in fact, and I think that's a shame.

Recently Reynolds has been very nostalgic for the late 70s, a time when language and politics seemed to be stable concepts. I look forward to reading his book on post-punk. In the late 70s bands like Scritti Politti and the Gang of Four were interested in Althusser and Gramsci, not Deleuze and Guattari. It will be interesting to read Reynolds' theoretical conclusions about that era.

There's a Crispy Ambulance flexi? And Reynolds has an autographed copy? This seals the deal, even if he does like that unlistenable rave music. Classic.

[Post referred to has been deleted for impersonation - yeah we know who it was. And no it wasn't Simon Reynolds). - Moderator]

There's a Crispy Ambulance flexi?

Mr. Darnielle, you are a man of goodness. :-)

THAT'S the quote of the year, so far.

Get's my vote for best quote of the year, too.

Ben - Wasn't trying to use D&G's theory as an alibi for SR's "failure to fully understand" the lit crit terminology he uses. I've already acknowledged that D&G seem to think a thorough knowledge of the cannon is key to understanding their work. The para you quoted is not a misrepresentation of the thought of Gilles Deleuze, but a perfectly accurate representation of the thought of Matthew Cohen. I'm not misunderstanding D&G, but disagreeing with them. No one sits down with the Republic and works their way forward before daring to approach present-day philosophy. Even if such were possible (it's not - if such were the case, we would never have any "in" to philosophy, our search for the first, original thought from which we can precede forward to D&G et al would only come to an end with the ancient, indecipherable scribblings on a cave's wall), I don't agree that it's necessary. One's understanding of a given text is of course refined, improved, etc. when one reads the texts that have come before it, but this is not to say that one cannot reach any of understanding of a given text prior to achieving this refinement. The impossibility of absorbing the cannon in its entirety is reflected in the work of the very continental philosophers we're discussing - there seems to be a gaping hole in their representation of western philosophy, between Aristotle and Kant, which is filled only by Spinoza and Descartes (the latter of which seems to exist only for the sake of taking potshots at, ignoring Spinoza's indebtedness to him).

My point about SR practicing what D&G preach was that he has achieved a form of writing that D&G seemed to advocate - focusing on the heaving, oozing, jiggling movement of (for example) the rave scene, rather than its isolated moments. Which is to say that, wrt the ideas he takes from D&G, he seems to understand them just fine, even if he doesn't get the bigger picture. (and I honestly have no idea if he gets it or not) (and who does, really?)

Mr. Sutcliffe - Still would really like to see some examples of SR's failure to properly grasp lit/cult crit...

I am putting off reading certain contemporary works because they assume so much knowledge of earlier philosophers. I don't think it's difficult to come up with a reading list of the names which comes up the most, the thinkers whose ideas had the most widespread impact. There are only so many big ideas to go around. The more minor philosophers may reshuffle them or put a new spin on them, but it's not difficult to get some sense of who the most important authors are (in terms of impact). That doesn't mean there won't be arguments, obviously.

I am very suspicious of a lot of continental philosophy, but I would like to read it eventually. However, I didn't see much point in coming to it without having some Hegel under my belt.

Hegel fills me with total helplessness every time I try to read him, but I swear, one day, one sweet day, I'll make my way through both the Logic and the Phenomenology of Spirit.

1. The slack-jawed E-gobblers aren't by and large violent at all. I think you are confusing them with those famed Football Hooligans (who, famously but I don't believe a word of it stopped being violent when they all started taking E).

2. This is mad. You're saying Texan students are all recycling Simon Reynolds? His fame extends wider than I could ever have imagined.

Imagine Mark SinXoR as a Texas philosophy lecturer, dismissively scrawling over essays in red ink: "Pah! Another boring Hornby re-run!"

poo i haf just remembered wot i had successfully repressed for three days, that i am meant to be delivering FT a review of that stupid da capo book...

well, no reason to read the review then, ho ho.

blimey this puts a crimp in my DECLINE OF ACADEMIC STANDARDS riff

Geeta, you must seek to get your hands on a copy of Frank's zine Why Music Sucks. As Ned might say: it is good, oh yes.

(Frank I've decided that I owe you a Mix CD - how does that sound?)

I'll have to second that, and I still have yet to read a word. ;-) Chuck Eddy mentions Frank and WMS prominently at the end of Stairway to Hell, and I now curse myself for never writing away to the address listed there all those years back. I've missed years of good thoughts, musical and otherwise, as a result.

it was about decadence and iggy pop's penis.

Tim - I've always wanted a mixtape but was too shy to ask. Address is Frank Kogan, PO Box 9761, Denver CO 80209-9761 (the addresses listed in the back of the Eddy books have long since been abandoned; this one won't last forever either, I don't think).

People actually interested in WMS should email me rather than sending $$$ to the address, since prices vary depending on where I'm sending it and which issue I'm sending.