pitchfork is dumb (#34985859340293849494 in a series.)

those are both very good.

flopson, paragraph 1, otm

thx treesh

imo kendrick is not really a 'tracks' artist per se ('bish dont kill my vibe' is the one that felt the most like, of a moment, to me, but is DQd for obvious reasons) and TPAB aotd would have made a lot more sense than blonde, and then swap out #1 track for uh idk, all my fav songs came in at like spot 150

“swimming pools”, I’m a worse Kendrick fan

yep I agree with flopson too.

also I disagree with the idea that music matters less to young people now. What I think has changed is that music is so extremely accessible, effectively for free, that the economic structure of young people's relationship to music has changed.

For me and I guess most ILXors, my adolescent engagement with music was in a context of relative scarcity: I had to consciously prioritise certain music acquisitions based on my available free cash, which in turn has a whole bunch of consequences:

1. Structures of taste which limit your exposure can actually be useful in that they make it easier to work out how to spend your available money: in particular, tribal/genre affiliations (i'm a metalhead; i'm a raver) provide a basis on which to turn the economic reality of limited music acquisition capacity into a virtue;

2. Against (1), the economic (and/or time-based) pain associated with locating and acquiring a large swathe of music, whether on a depth basis ("I have every consecutive Halo-numbered Nine Inch Nails release") or on a breadth basis (being genre-agnostic), confers on that pursuit a different kind of virtue ("you're a real fan" / "you know a lot about music") which loses its force in an era when the vast majority of music is readily and immediately available at effectively no cost.

3. More simply, if you can only afford to buy, say, one album a month, then you're pretty much going to be forced to invest in that album much more than if you can stream a different album each day. Moreover, the more music you hear, the less the idea of massive investment in a single album or piece of music or artist makes sense as a way to structure your taste.

4. Finally and further to (3), if music is expensive to consume and you have limited funds, then the use of gatekeeper authorities (such as music critics, magazines, trend-setting friends) to assist you to order and prioritise your music consumption activities becomes much more important.

What strikes me about young people's listening habits today is that they are consuming more and a greater variety of music, and often quite obscure music, than I did or would have been able to at their age. This tends to propel people toward being genre-agnostic as a kind of default but not in the way that would necessarily make sense during the 90s - the "eclectic" tastes of younger listeners often strike me as pretty random, and lacking the kind of editorial meta-narrative applied by a listener who made a conscious effort to, say, hear each of Spin's top 20 albums of 199x (I also agree with flopson that the cool kid riposte to this is to rebel against or resist the semi-conscious poptimist/genre-agnostic consensus).

All of which means that the narrative structures for why music is important are becoming less and less persuasive - young people listen to just as much (more) music, and connect to it on an individual, emotional level just as much, but the economic incentives to tell ourselves stories about the music (and in particular why this music is more important as that music) aren't as strong as they used to be.

Which is one reason why p4k's insistence on "importance" feels a bit perverse when applied to contemporary music: the last decade feels like a time when viewing music through that lens makes less sense than it would have previously.

you say all that but then i'm less clear what makes you think they connect to the music as much since you've just undercut lots of things that go into connection

Well, I guess it depends on what you mean by "connect".

One analogy would be whether someone who boasts endlessly about their child being a successful surgeon loves their child more than another parent who doesn't really care about their child's career.

That is, the stories we tell ourselves and others about how/why we love something/someone do not exhaust the experience of that love (although it would be naive to believe they don't shape that experience).

What strikes me about young people's listening habits today is that they are consuming more and a greater variety of music, and often quite obscure music, than I did or would have been able to at their age. This tends to propel people toward being genre-agnostic as a kind of default but not in the way that would necessarily make sense during the 90s - the "eclectic" tastes of younger listeners often strike me as pretty random, and lacking the kind of editorial meta-narrative applied by a listener who made a conscious effort to, say, hear each of Spin's top 20 albums of 199x (I also agree with flopson that the cool kid riposte to this is to rebel against or resist the semi-conscious poptimist/genre-agnostic consensus).

I know I'm countering your anecdotal data vs mine, but I have no evidence that my POC cohort at a large public university consumes a variety of music: if anything, I see the Mitskis, Parquet Courts, Big Thiefs, and so on that Pitchfork still pushes. Yet here's the thing: few read Pitchfork for reviews anymore. I realize they didn't read SPIN, RS, whatever in 2009 or 1999 either, but these young men and women are pretty isolated, reliant on second- and thirdhand sources for recommendations.

I've become friends with a 22-year-old self-aware student reporter who told me last week "I know songs, not artists." At the newsroom today the editor blasted Angel Olsen, CCR, Cream, Method Man, and George Benson. This miscellany would, of course, defeat anyone. When I asked him about it, he said, "This shit just comes up" on Spotify recommendations.

(NB: the collapse of CMJ has hurt college radio but released them from what Tim calls genre-agonsticism).

I would say that spotify playlists/recommendations and equivalents are massively important

*Big Thief

At the newsroom today the editor blasted Angel Olsen, CCR, Cream, Method Man, and George Benson

the strict chronological equivalent of this in, say, 1989, would be an editor blasting whover the 1989 version of angel olsen was followed by roy acuff, robert johnson, a motown song, and then, say, "take the 'a' train." which i'm pretty sure no one in any college anywhere in 1989 ever did. but maybe they should have?

the "i know songs, not artists" thing tracks with conversations with one of my nephews 15 years ago who didn't know artists *or* songs, just track numbers. he knew he liked track 7 on this cd, track 3 on that cd, etc.

i don’t have a strong prior about whether music is less important now; we could check using American time use survey tho. i suspect Shakey is correct in the sense of time spent listening to music by the typical 20-35 year old decreasing since 2000

if ‘young people are consuming more and a greater variety of music and often quite obscure music’, and the narrative and economic incentives aren't as important as they were in our era, I'm wondering what shakes out from that

'more...

Lol @ “obscure” tbh

This conversation is very interesting, except I don’t understand why you guys are talking about cool kids turning up their noses at pop music as if that’s a new phenomenon(?)

(I’m ignoring the fact that you’re using the term “poptimist,” b/c I don’t know what it means – other than it sounds like a rock critic trying to convince himself that pop music is “valuable” and “worth attention.”)

Dont worry, nobody else knows what it means either

thinking 'pop music' probably mean something very different to kids today

*means

I would like to applaud you Tim F for such an interesting and thoughtful post! I've often thought of critical sources had now become "filters in the face of an exhausting mass of content" but it's not really the case, is it? At least you argue against it; I would think that user-based aggregators such as RYM are working in this capacity more than journalistic institutions, which is.. sad! but whatever

i think spotify and other service's algorithms are doing a lot of this "filtering" for people, which is kind of frightening

When I was 15 it was radio algorithms, the choices of a few college DJs and what I could find at the one 'cool' CD shop in town.

i don't think the role streaming algorithms play is all that different to radio playlists in previous times, just the results are a little more eclectic

(I’m ignoring the fact that you’re using the term “poptimist,” b/c I don’t know what it means – other than it sounds like a rock critic trying to convince himself that pop music is “valuable” and “worth attention.”)

― drunk on hot toddies (morrisp), Monday, October 14, 2019 10:19 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Dont worry, nobody else knows what it means either

― Οὖτις, Monday, October 14, 2019 10:21 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

people always say this but it’s extremely simple and everyone who reads this board understands what it means

morrisp's thing as new guy is putting on airs among all us reprobates like he'll finally get to the bottom of things with his incisive critical interventions

the feigned ignorance by ppl who have posted here for 15 years when we talk abt rockism and popism is one of the weirdest things imo

its kind of like the ‘how could i possibly understand what “intersectionality” means—that word has like, eight syllables!’ routine from 5 years ago

iLM built a great tower to reach pop heaven but GOD struck it down and now all our pop music discourse is confounded

LOL @ u guys

except I don’t understand why you guys are talking about cool kids turning up their noses at pop music as if that’s a new phenomenon

i mean, it’s more abt the ebb and flow about the mean. some cool kids (rightly) don’t turn up their noses at pop music, but maybe more do now than did 8 years ago

If you say it, I believe it (sounds like you have your ear to the ground)... it just struck me a little funny, I thought “not liking the most popular stuff” was a fairly constant signifier of “coolness.”

This conversation is very interesting, except I don’t understand why you guys are talking about cool kids turning up their noses at pop music as if that’s a new phenomenon(?)

for me at least this wasn't really about pop music per se.

more the idea that in an age where the starting position is that you can listen to virtually anything there are some pockets where the 'perverse' choice of only listening to (and passionately investing in) <insert> acquires a heightened nobility precisely because it's a more arbitrary choice than it used to be.

it's not being anti-pop music (although it can be combined with an anti-pop stance) - more anti-eclectism.

i mean again that was something that always happened but it feels like it has a different resonance in this era

I see what you’re saying...

I only interact with one “Zoomer” on a semi-regular basis — a teenager in my extended family who listened to classic punk in middle school; was heavily into Black Veil Brides and Kyary Pamyu Pamyu a few years ago; and now sometimes wears t-shirts of obscure local rappers. I asked her a few weeks ago if she likes Billie Eilish (because she kind of has that “look”) — I received an emphatic “No.” Why not? “She just copied Melanie Martinez, and her music isn’t as good.”

What I think has changed is that music is so extremely accessible, effectively for free, that the economic structure of young people's relationship to music has changed.

The conditions of access to music have changed but the revolutionary implications of this shift haven't rattled the habits of most listeners. The obsessives' palette of obsessions has broadened while almost everyone else is stuck in an algorithmic ghetto of curated playlists. (This is all anecdotal, of course.)

people always say this but it’s extremely simple and everyone who reads this board understands what it means

I don't agree with either part of this fwiw.

Likewise. I support certain versions of poptimism and vehemently disagree with others.

TS: Poptimism 1.0 vs. 2.0

I'm a 1.5er myself.

This is the most interesting discussion on ILM I've seen in a long time. Good stuff, esp. flopson and Tim F.

At the newsroom today the editor blasted Angel Olsen, CCR, Cream, Method Man, and George Benson. This miscellany would, of course, defeat anyone. When I asked him about it, he said, "This shit just comes up" on Spotify recommendations.

tbf, this is the same response I've gotten from different record store clerks the last few times I've inquired about what was playing in the store while I was browsing, which is why I don't ask anymore. Another hallowed ritual ruined by streaming. Now I just use Shazam.

I don't know if "ruin" has anything to do with it. That's excellent variety even if algorithmed.

For me and I guess most ILXors, my adolescent engagement with music was in a context of relative scarcity: I had to consciously prioritise certain music acquisitions based on my available free cash, which in turn has a whole bunch of consequences:

1. Structures of taste which limit your exposure can actually be useful in that they make it easier to work out how to spend your available money: in particular, tribal/genre affiliations (i'm a metalhead; i'm a raver) provide a basis on which to turn the economic reality of limited music acquisition capacity into a virtue;

2. Against (1), the economic (and/or time-based) pain associated with locating and acquiring a large swathe of music, whether on a depth basis ("I have every consecutive Halo-numbered Nine Inch Nails release") or on a breadth basis (being genre-agnostic), confers on that pursuit a different kind of virtue ("you're a real fan" / "you know a lot about music") which loses its force in an era when the vast majority of music is readily and immediately available at effectively no cost.

3. More simply, if you can only afford to buy, say, one album a month, then you're pretty much going to be forced to invest in that album much more than if you can stream a different album each day. Moreover, the more music you hear, the less the idea of massive investment in a single album or piece of music or artist makes sense as a way to structure your taste.

4. Finally and further to (3), if music is expensive to consume and you have limited funds, then the use of gatekeeper authorities (such as music critics, magazines, trend-setting friends) to assist you to order and prioritise your music consumption activities becomes much more important.

This seems like a v good summary of how different things were and why.

back in the day the skater kids used to play hardcore and Public Enemy on their boomboxes

nowadays I always hear Drake at the skate park

this is the same response I've gotten from different record store clerks the last few times I've inquired about what was playing in the store while I was browsing

What kind of self-respecting record store clerk...?!?

that one who's just completely over it

tbf, this is the same response I've gotten from different record store clerks the last few times I've inquired about what was playing in the store while I was browsing, which is why I don't ask anymore. Another hallowed ritual ruined by streaming. Now I just use Shazam.

I'm so glad I haven't run into this (yet) at any of the good shops I like to visit.

ipeople always say this but it’s extremely simple and everyone who reads this board understands what it means

I don't agree with either part of this fwiw.

― All along there is the sound of feedback (Sund4r), Tuesday, October 15, 2019 7:02 AM (four hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

narrowly it’s just unapologetically liking pop music (rejecting concepts like ‘guilty pleasure’) and affording it the same critical/analytic seriousness as rock music or any other art. more broadly it’s about acknowledging that we come to music with inherited preconceptions and biases about which music is ‘serious’ or ‘authentic’, and unpacking those as well as trying to move beyond them. ned raggetts 90s List is a beautiful example of an alt-canon that a less rockist critical frame can be. in the context of mid-00s indie when indie people started to embrace pop sounds and terms like ‘perfect pop’ were everywhere, poptimism was in part a backlash to the hypocrisy of doing so while ignoring actual pop

not complicated; surely you all already knew this. i know some of you have humanities backgrounds and are averse to defining terms but it’s a pretty easy and useful one imho

poptimism 2.0 was a sociological observation made sometime in the last few years by maura, whiney and others that many critics who champion pop today are doing so in a way that reifies the bad old ‘rockist’ values such as: album orientation (vs singles), artist as ‘auteur’ (vs artist being face and voice of a collaboration between many producers, songwriters), strong unified aesthetics, projection of artistic ‘integrity’. lana del rey, beyoncé this decade. it’s similar to how annoying certain robyn stans were last decade (she writes her own songs! is scandinavian!) but writ large

whiney somewhat confused the matter by implying that poptimists have to write effusively about imagine dragons. which doesn’t necessarily follow, but is probably symptomatic; poptimists don’t have to *like* imagine dragons, but imo it is indicative of something that so few pop critics wrote about them

also worth noting that a lot of ‘og’ ilx popist people have walked back into rockism. j3ss h4rvell was recently saying on twitter that early-00s poptimism was only because of frikki-frikki timbaland and neptunes production sounding like experimental music, and that by 2003 pop wasn’t worth critical attention anymore. which is a repulsive and horribly misguided sentiment imo, but just goes to show how far we’ve fallen since then

Somewhat related, I suppose: a close friend of mine contends that the economic devaluation of recorded music is a correction, not a problem (or anything else). He contends that recorded music was never meant to have economic value, and (then he starts talking about Adorno and the concept of "culture industry") that recorded music as an art form will only be elevated as its economic value decreases toward zero.

I can't say I necessarily agree with him, but it is an interesting take

it's definitely a correction. for most of human history music was essentially economically worthless.