{THE PILL BOX } spacer
spacer
spacer
powered by blogger

{Thursday}

 
Advance word is that the Grauniad isn't publishing my letter about their immensely silly 'Never Mind the Britpop' article [see below]; not that it's some great historical epistle about one of the solemn topics of the day, but here it is, anyway:

I, too, have always been suspicious of wrinkly older
critics who declare the "death of rock/pop" and posit
irretrievably superior bygone eras - so I have some
sympathy for Natalie Hanman's rhetorical defence of
the current music scene [Comment 8.2.06]. That said,
critics are supposed to provide context and comparison
and know their history. Henman's "onslaught of
indie-rock bands that are selling out shows, storming
up the charts and creating a golden age of music" is a
fond, but rather myopic notion, delivered in the
doubt-free syntax of excitable PR. What about context,
what about comparison? This would seem especially
necessary in a 'scene' which is 98.9% laddishly
homogenous, skinny-white-boy riffy-rock.
Bloc Party and Kaiser Chiefs sound disturbingly
reminiscent of post-punk third-raters like The Members
and The Ruts; Franz Ferdinand are more an I-Spy Our
New Wave References game than a real and original
band; while Babyshambles represent the triumph of
self-mythologisation over smeary, half-cocked
substance.
I’ll reserve judgement on The Artic Monkeys
(partly, yes, because I'm old and wrinkly and not the
most excitable of chaps these days); but I suspect that
in years to come they’ll be remembered as much for the
*manner* of their irruptive
underground->mainstream/internet->chart crossover, as
for a music which is 25% youthful sizzle to 75%
formulaic boilerplate and standard teen-boy moan.
Where is any hint of strangeness, of over-reaching
ambition, of at least SOME departure from post-Oasis
post-Strokes norms?
There: that patronising enough?


posted by Ian 2/09/2006 07:03:00 PM

Comments:
Maybe it was spiked because of that outrageous slur against the Ruts (sob)
 
leaving the argument aside (kindest to do so in the case of Nat), it is a little saddening that the Guardian will PAY for 'writing' as bad as Hanman's and turn down (gratis) prose as good as this . 'The doubt-free syntax of excitable PR', lol...
 
Hmmm... and whilst a lack of historicised context can be a liberating state to be in ("everything is new...again...") this Groaniad article is pretty indicative of the utter paucity of intellectual engagement in music (and probbly most other things in the world) by a supine generation of essentially nihilistic unquestioning cocooned and complacent consumers. At least they're largely unaware of how unutterably moribund their times truly are. Oh shit and they're my times as well. Oh well... A young fogey writes...
 
Is it obligatory that each new "indie-rock revolution" must be tamer and more conventional than the previous week's and its enthusiasts increasingly reliant on Violet Bott style outbursts?
 
Wait, wait, I thought it was a case of a kid of one of the editors being tossed a shiny sixpence for writing Her First Article about that New! Pop! Musik! But it turns out that Nat is a regularish writer for The Groanian. Listen to these words of wisdom on Grime ferinstance:

'Grime gigs attract crowds of black youngsters who come as part of a crew or collective, and jump around with their hoods up, getting rowdy. It's not the sort of thing you see at a U2 concert - one promoter says it reminds him of footage he watched of the first punk gigs: raw energy being channelled in a creative environment.'

AND

'When it comes to music, we should be taking risks and accepting the challenge of unfamiliar sounds just in case - God forbid - they have something important to say. And grime does. Like punk, it is the voice of a minority questioning society. Punk sounded scary at the time, too. But it set a precedent for decades of musical innovation, and its influence is still felt. Let's give grime the same chance - so it can prove if it really is worth it.'http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1673893,00.html

and on the comments pages no less, not on some Why Don't You produce third-rate school magazine journalism colouring-in competition Yoof supplement either!
 
"...crowds of black youngsters who come as part of a crew or collective, and jump around with their hoods up, getting rowdy."

?????

Ye gods.

Did I lose half my hearing in the punk wars for THIS?

O bugger.
 
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
 
{{--> i dont think we should take any of this as somehow generationally indicative or summat... i know yoof who can write the birds out the sky... and who wouldnt SPIT on the likes of kaiser chiefs or artic monkeys...
...but there IS perhaps something (depressingly) indicative about Guardian/media role in all this, tho'...

{{and in x months time Ms Hanman will doubtless have a yak-on role in some C4 or 5 list-prog, where she will doubtless - & completely doubt-free - enshrine one of her lumpen lairy lager-rock lads as (siiiiigh) desperately and pertinently "*c*n*c" ...

Golden years
Golden years
RUN FOR THE SHADOWS...
 
"Wait, wait, I thought it was a case of a kid of one of the editors being tossed a shiny sixpence for writing Her First Article about that New! Pop! Musik!"

haha! indeed, i kind of assume ALL guardian writers have been sired by members of the board these days...
 
ip, if you'd only signed it 'ben hyphenate, aged 17', it wd have been a shoe-in...
 
'PostStrokes'? The Strokes themselves are more PostLouReedPreGuitarSoloTelevisionPreAfroTalkingHeadsAbsolutelyNoWaveStupiderButCuterThanSonicYouth

As for Oasis - PostBeggarsBanquetButPreRevolverButSimultaneousWithSladeWithoutTheirCharismaPreANDPostStatusQuoWithLessConviction

It's surprising that you chaps are taking all these Carling sponsored C1/C2 demographic boybands so seriously... 90s Britpop reminds us that coke and smack will provide the real rain to wash these fools away from our ears...
AGUIRRE ANON
 
Hey - I just give the 'genre' a new name "Carling Boybands". Can I edit the NME now?
AGUIRRE ANON
 
ok (steps into the lion's den) this piece is kind of embarassing but it does contain one esssential truism, which it's bold and smart enough to stick at the front. even if it uses the (surely despised in these quarters?) words of gladwell, arctic monkeys do represent some kind of "tipping point". they are worth checking out (scolds) you fusty ol' men.

i think you'd have to be over-egging it to say they represent anything seismic culturally, but NOTHING not even grime over the past four years has offered up anything but a cosmetic revolution (well not even that actually - no promises of nuffink) so a bit of "vigorous" ruffneck, completely heartfelt, barrelling down the gun, uncompromised rawk, well it's not to be sniffed at in my book.

nothing else i've heard yet quite matches it, and i'm not rushing out to check out franz ferdinand (probably the next least noxious offering) but you've got to hand it to them....
 
My, my - When are you chaps gonna realise that pop (despite the overcooked theorising of Marcus, Morley, Reynolds etc.) is nothing more than MASS ENTERTAINMENT (look how TV has formed the pop 'moment' since the 60s). Occasionaly it might 'synergise' with politics, fashion or art or whatever, but ultimately it always has been and always will be PRODUCT. That this PRODUCT may reach peaks and depths sublime is an occasional plus. Find your OWN revolution - kill yr idols! You have nothing to lose but your overdrafts... AGUIRRE ANON
 
Oopsy. For "Viola Bott" read "Violet Elizabeth Bott" back there. Boy, is my face red.
 
... One reason I stopped reading about music was their tiresome need to sell us 'the big moment', 'the new thing', 'the spontaneous phenomenon', 'the new punk', 'the world-changing innovation' - PSEUDO-revolutions ad nausaem.

Summer of love? Never got Nixon out Indochina. Soul and Motown? Now drooling on the cabaret circuit. Reggae? Too stoned to stop Jamaica turning into a worse hell. Punk wars? Thatcher won it hands down. Hiphop? Black reaganomics fetish. Rave? A generation of thirtysomething manic depressives. Grime? A dreary symptom of Blair's education policy. History refuses to let go, you armchair Guevaras! Get real! - AGUIRRE ANON
 
Face it, music is no longer the privileged haunt of the geist. It’s ceded the role it held for 40 years and today, in truth, Channel Four's schedule is as sensitive a barometer of socio-cultural conditions as pop.

While we might bemoan this state of affairs, its pointless to berate today's yoof for failing to fulfil their putative historical destiny (i.e. to conform to an ossified set of counter-cultural values two decades out of date). The discourse network, the ambient assemblage, has changed: music has been deposed, and now occupies a new, more modest position in the mediascape. This is not so much a tragedy for musicians or audiences, as one for that legion of now-not-so-young men who with inky fingers invested considerable libidinal energy and theoretical labour in valorising the children's crusade of pop. (You can easily determine which side of this faultline you fall be considering your response to the statement that 'you can find great records in every year')

In contrast to the offending article's affected enthusiasm and parodic resurrection of the rhetoric of intergenerational friction, a vox-pox of Natalie’s coevals on the subject of Radio One (published in the much-maligned Guardian) articulates the real sea-change:

'...listening to Radio 1 for a week... I realised one thing: Radio 1 cares about music. God help it.

Someone has clearly misunderstood the target age group. In fact, the number of 15- to 24-year-olds who really care about music is much too small to base an audience on. Today, albums are for 50-quid blokes and Katie Melua fans; the single is cheap, easy and disposable. We want to listen to it, and we want to dance to it, and we might want it as a ringtone. We don't want to talk about it. There isn't really very much to say...'- Grace Fletcher-Hall, 18

Grim as it seems, this is the modern world.
 
In many ways an unmasking of a truth of sorts- all countercultural activity which is for profit and which is tolerated by the authorities is realy little more than pseudo-rebellion, a bone tossed to youth in the last 50yrs to prevent them from getting too agitated about anything more fundamental or anything which might run more fundermentally against the vested interests and structures of government and business alike (and indeed the same might be said for drug/sexual liberalisation- how radical can it TRULY be so long as it is tolerated by those in power?) However, as youth no longer even bothers to go through the motions of a pseudo-rebellion, one might ask if this is not an even more damning endictment- Its not so much that these placemakers for greater struggle are seen for what they really are, but rather that they have no desire for struggle of any kind- utter nihilsm in other words.
 
A long, long time ago...
I can still remember
How that music used to make me smile.
And I knew if I had my chance
That I could make those people dance
And, maybe, they’d be happy for a while.

But february made me shiver
With every paper I’d deliver.
Bad news on the doorstep;
I couldn’t take one more step.

I can’t remember if I cried
When I read about his widowed bride,
But something touched me deep inside
The day the music died.

So bye-bye, miss american pie.
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

Did you write the book of love,
And do you have faith in God above,
If the Bible tells you so?
Do you believe in rock ’n roll,
Can music save your mortal soul,
And can you teach me how to dance real slow?

Well, I know that you’re in love with him
`cause I saw you dancin’ in the gym.
You both kicked off your shoes.
Man, I dig those rhythm and blues.

I was a lonely teenage broncin’ buck
With a pink carnation and a pickup truck,
But I knew I was out of luck
The day the music died.

I started singin’,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

Now for ten years we’ve been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin’ stone,
But that’s not how it used to be.
When the jester sang for the king and queen,
In a coat he borrowed from james dean
And a voice that came from you and me,

Oh, and while the king was looking down,
The jester stole his thorny crown.
The courtroom was adjourned;
No verdict was returned.
And while lennon read a book of marx,
The quartet practiced in the park,
And we sang dirges in the dark
The day the music died.

We were singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

Helter skelter in a summer swelter.
The birds flew off with a fallout shelter,
Eight miles high and falling fast.
It landed foul on the grass.
The players tried for a forward pass,
With the jester on the sidelines in a cast.

Now the half-time air was sweet perfume
While the sergeants played a marching tune.
We all got up to dance,
Oh, but we never got the chance!
`cause the players tried to take the field;
The marching band refused to yield.
Do you recall what was revealed
The day the music died?

We started singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

Oh, and there we were all in one place,
A generation lost in space
With no time left to start again.
So come on: jack be nimble, jack be quick!
Jack flash sat on a candlestick
Cause fire is the devil’s only friend.

Oh, and as I watched him on the stage
My hands were clenched in fists of rage.
No angel born in hell
Could break that satan’s spell.
And as the flames climbed high into the night
To light the sacrificial rite,
I saw satan laughing with delight
The day the music died

He was singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
And singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

I met a girl who sang the blues
And I asked her for some happy news,
But she just smiled and turned away.
I went down to the sacred store
Where I’d heard the music years before,
But the man there said the music wouldn’t play.

And in the streets: the children screamed,
The lovers cried, and the poets dreamed.
But not a word was spoken;
The church bells all were broken.
And the three men I admire most:
The father, son, and the holy ghost,
They caught the last train for the coast
The day the music died.

And they were singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
And them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die.
"this’ll be the day that I die."

They were singing,
"bye-bye, miss american pie."
Drove my chevy to the levee,
But the levee was dry.
Them good old boys were drinkin’ whiskey and rye
Singin’, "this’ll be the day that I die."
 
Matt, I don't know in what sense you are using the word 'revolution'... I think one of the significant and symptomatic things about Hanman's quite staggering piece is her cheerful adoption of a PR/marketing sense of the word 'revolution'... as if lots of people BUYING a record constituted a revolution in any meaningful sense... The Jam! The Libertines! Oasis! The Smiths! No possible combo of the above can ever be revolutionary. This is the sound of restoration, not revolution. One group who'd finished before the non-psychotic Minkis were out of nappies, three others who were sixties revivalists from the outset. Old men in young bodies.

I don't really understand what she means by 'tipping point' either; that would imply that BEFORE the Ancient Monkeys, Indie was bubbling under/ barely recognized, when it has been the dominant mainstream sound for years now.

Going along with this AM hype is like approving of the Stone Roses but worse... It will only lead to more restoration, more reaction...
 
The discourse network, the ambient assemblage, has changed: music has been deposed, and now occupies a new, more modest position in the mediascape. This is not so much a tragedy for musicians or audiences, as one for that legion of now-not-so-young men who with inky fingers invested considerable libidinal energy and theoretical labour in valorising the children's crusade of pop.

Aha! The voice of realism...

Agree that music has been removed from its position of previous centrality but to say it has been deposed would imply it has been replaced, when clearly it hasn't. If there was something in popular culture to match what pop once was, there WOULD be nothing to be mourned.

Things have changed, for sure, but y'know, it's just possible that things have got worse. There's no historical law which guarantees that all periods are equally creative, vibrant, interesting. We live in times of restoration.

Musicians I suppose, being levelheaded folk, not apt to devote libidinal and theoretical energies into valourising pop, are perfectly happy with their new modest place in the scheme of things. They don't look back to previous eras or feed off their libidinal and theoretical energy at all, as can be seen by their complete break from the past and the new forms that they are everywhere innovating.

As for audiences, it is the very fact that they accept such meagre fare as adequate which is the tragedy.
 
Rebellion has never been an interesting stance, needless to say.
 
Bald men arguing over a comb, anyone?
 
music-as-comb = it is a useful item that "you lot" have outgrown the use of

this seems unlikely to me (or anyway v.sad): more congenial (to me) is mark's agrt that "rebellious posture" is the comb, except it is NOT a comb* but, i don't know, periwig powder or an antimacassar or something

what is bein mourned is a species of ROCK anyway -- pop is not a "type" of music", still less a figure for all possible music -- and the species of rock in question [as made by the v,g,b,d technology, to be affirmed in live performance] has had, i would note, a startlingly LONG run within popular music, as a format that demanded significant attention [as opposed to reconstructionist-hobbyist archive-love]: some 50 years

one of the things she is clumsily talkin about -- so clumsily in fact that you'all have been put off pickin it up -- is the experience of music as potential community, as species of social gathering: it's obvious that there's a yearning for SOMETHING political in this act of gathering, however lousily or confusedly or even deludedly articulated it is... this yearning, which is at the very least anti-atomisation, may be fixating on the wrong locus -- grabbing at a pretext for gathering that offers little in return -- but it nevertheless signals that the utopian heart of music [and now i do mean all-possible-music] still beats, except that its distance from the rationalising head or conscious understanding of use, purpose, value etc, is currently very great

in other words the values being lamented have not fled, unlesss you mean fled deep inside: they are dormant, waiting to be rewoken -- and they are present (perhaps so deep as to be unimaginable -- but this only speak to a weakness in our imaginations) in EVERY SILLY LOVE SONG and POP TRIFLE and MISCUED AVANT-GARDE BELCH and SELF-IMPORTANT INDIE RETREAD and STUDENT-SHAPED SELF-MELODRAMATISATION...

ps i resolutely blame the CLASH for everythin bein fussed about in this comments box -- they were a BAD THING through and through

*actually i never use combs but this is because i have TOO MUCH HAIR not too little
 
Ah, but at least we had hair ONCE (METAPHORICALLY) and some of us still have it (LITERALLY)
 
(did you get that mp3 i sent you mark?)
 
kp sez: "It is for critics to cultivate a sense of disgust, of dissatisfaction with what is being offered. It is for critics to insist that nothing less than sublimity will ever do."

i think this is a mixture of statement ethos -- which i have no problem with really -- and fetishisation of tactical-technological means: what if "announcements of disgust" as a technique were as played out in the field of rhetoric as "[v,g, b, d, performed live]' were in music? there are many ways of inculcate dissatisfaction: my preferred has -- i suppose -- always been the "also, there's this" tactic, where the meagreness is not exposed by wild fulmination (which is all too easily prey to the "if we're pissin off old father X, we must be doin sumfin right" kneejerk), by by comparison and contrast

(and in fact -- tho specifically not to put this point in a rock's-rich-tapestry sense -- there are lacks in, say, the sugababes that grime presents, or anyway points to; and there are lacks in grime that the sugababes point to ---> and another thing critics shd be able to do is carry a vision of the these contradictory things-lacking, and imagine a futureworld where BOTH are fulfilled without the other being occluded?) (haha sorry this is horrifically abstract -- someone else can identify via actual decription the lacks of
which i speak -- i am travelling by touch and intuition here viz "i like it" = "it is a skewed glimpse of sublimity")

(also of course it's way more than "both")
 
what is bein mourned is a species of ROCK anyway

not by me - in fact, the contrary. What I am mourning, paradoxically, is the survival of rock.

My problem with what you are saying is that it is so a priori, so anti-historical... when wouldn't those impulses be in effect? Are they just features of the indomitable human spirit?

And isn't the VERY POINT that it is 'fixating on the wrong locus' and has been for so long now that any hope for that to change is an act of faith?

(Not seeing what yr talking about re:Clash --- obv they are to deplored without reservation but the collapse of their agenda isn't something over which I'd shed a tear. On the contrary.)
 
re: mp3, my computer, which is wheezing with low disk space atm, gets a quarter of a way through downloading it then gives up, losing my internet connection in the process, necessitating restart. Not sure if this a consequence of the disk space prob or of Mcafee...

re; the disgust thing, disgust, far from being played out, seems to be completely absent from pop discourse atm. Not suggesting it is the ONLY tactic, but am attached to the idea that some possibilities exclude others ... 'try this as well' fits too easily with Deleuzian capitalist-consumerism and Ipop omnivorism...
 
"And isn't the VERY POINT that it is 'fixating on the wrong locus' and has been for so long now that any hope for that to change is an act of faith?"

This is ambiguous: do you mean, it's faith to imagine that teens/non-teens even now fixating can't be persuaded to act otherwise than they now do their minds (which i think -- i have faith -- is rubbish); or do you mean, there's nothing left in this locus to allow those fixating on it to see their way out unaided (which is what i was trying to say)

i'm not quite sure what you mean by "indomitable human spirit" -- practically speaking, i think that the things you are the others here are dreaming of and angrily mourning are not things that the fanbase here are forever and by definition incapable of recognising as values: they have the potential to be woken up, if you like -- will they be self-waking? maybe not... will they be self-waking via the medium of indie rock? i find this very hard to believe indeed (but of course the "medium of indie rock" also now includes the "medium of a restricted speices of discussion in newspapers like the guardian", and i actually think the LATTER is far more the entrenched problem than the former... newspapers as a virtual community are the technology of the chauvinist mid-borgeoisie since c.the 1700s, and their affect in this fomat is much more unquestioned)

"species of rock being mourned": ok this was a bit unclear -- but i think yr disgust at the persistence of rock relates to a long-ago sense that once rock itself (even in quite a narrow sense) meant/promised something more; and that without this (i'd say with this switched off), it's just a repellent spectacle of denial and futility

if it were an activity that you'd never invested hope and potential in at ANY time (viz i don't know, golf), you wouldn't be so furious, i don't think -- it wd just be some harmless leisure activity among many that wasn't a good OR a bad thing (i chose golf pretty much at random btw: anyone who wishes to defend it as a field of utopain possibility feel free) (also i bet kp secretly loves golf and spends most weekends out on the links)
 
(dear god that last post of mine is full of incomprehensible typos)

the only way you can demonstrate that some activities exclude others is by trying them both at once! i agree that a lot of the social conflicts are hidden by being sedimented into the unconscious machinery by which we layer and segmentate [this is not a word, i guess i mean segregate] our lives: but by opting for a restricted selection of these life segments, we continue to hide stuff from ourselves

here's what i don't believe: "embrace everything! it will all work out!"

here's what i guess i do believe: "think and feel yr way through the embracement of everything -- that's how you work out where the occluding interstices are"

ie "guilty pleasures" is only step one of the examination: it's a symptom not a steady state -- "explore the pleasure as if real, and report back to yrself" is part of what has to follow
 
actually that's wrong, bcz the pleasure IS real -- i am basically just unhappy at the idea of tracking away from our attraction to things/activities as an indicator of latent utopian content -- because it always is -- as opposed to a mapping of the type of utopia entailed (reactionary/overlooked/merely unrealistic etc)

i think routinised disgust is ALL OVER pop discourse -- it is the most common tabloid mode

(but i imagine we mean difft things by "discourse")
 
taking the last point first: yeh, agree that something a little like disgust is in the tabloids - but this more like prurience. And in any case, it's reactionary and in favour of the restoration, therefore perfectly in tune with the Indies. Don't see THAT much disgust about the persistence of U2/ the pop status quo...

My suspicion (or fear) is less that teens can't be switched over to something else (though I do not share the fetishism of youth* many seem to subscribe to) but that there is nothing else to switch over to. Yes, like the messiah, some new locus might be just around the corner, but what if it isn't?

I just don't see that there is ALWAYS some utopian impulse at work; it's that anti-historical, unfalsifiable ALWAYS I wonder about. I mean, sometimes a ring tone is just a ring tone.

Disgust at the persistence of rock - hmm. Well, it's Indie that's the problem for me; there wasn't any period of betrayed love and disappointment preceding my twenty-year long loathing of it. (re: golf, well I have only played pitch and putt but I do enjoy that tremendously...)

*the youth thing... think there's a Romanticism of youth at work in some of the responses to the Guardian piece that is no less pernicious than rockism, and which underlies certain versions of rockism (perhaps Romanticism itself is a species of youth-fetishism). The idea that the young are necessarily and intrinsically interesting is uh a quaint faith but not very borne out by reality (it wasn't true when I was a teenager, still less now - though perhaps my incapacity for idealisation of teenz is a consequence of having to deal with them on a day-to-day basis...) Interesting is as interesting does... The conditions for youth culture being an engine of pop cultural innovation were perhaps very specific and no longer obtain. Part of the problem with the 'rebellion' thing is that it is so ahistorical - the young have ALWAYS rebelled against the ir elders, Pop was just an expression of that. Nat buys into that story absolutely. It's a cyclical account of history; or rather an ahistorical story about cycles. But there isn't PRECISELY THE SAME potential for cultural vibrancy and interest in any period. Conditions for the novel, for lyric poetry, for jazz, for opera, were very specific. Don't think we should a priori think that pop won't become like those forms.

Following interested me but it seems very compressed (at least to me): could you unpack?

newspapers like the guardian", and i actually think the LATTER is far more the entrenched problem than the former... newspapers as a virtual community are the technology of the chauvinist mid-borgeoisie since c.the 1700s, and their affect in this fomat is much more unquestioned
 
"STEWARD! What are all these people doing in my cabin!?"

- I.P. {after Groucho...
 
rock is a form
pop isn't a form, it's a field -- a terrain w,various things moving around on it

"the news" is a form
TV (or better, broadcast screen-based media) is a field

(newspapers USED to be a field: i *think* they are now just a form, albeit a complex one, within a much wider word-based field)

eternal utopianism ideology of the ringtone: "it's good to talk" (=always true except when it isn't)

i realise there are issues of professional appropriateness etc etc but you should really bring more of yr concrete daily experience in re the de-idealisation of "youth" INTO yr discourse

re compression: sorry some of the problem here is obv i am working from a big personal Theory of Media and Technology and Culture which i advert to all the time but never Explain in Full bcz, well, i have been researching and working on the Statement of Position for like 20 years and erm Am Not Ready to Spill

what is at issue here is not so much the experience of enjoying the AMs as how this experience is being presented to us, to convince us it is worthwhile: it borrows a model of "LOOK IT's GREAT cz of THIS THIS and THIS" which we don't share (and indeed hate): this model has been adapted from the rock mags mainly by the broadsheets, as the guaranteed-way-to-propose-and-examine-excellence --- but we are stuck with a conundrum... is she describing the AM-experience WELL, and it really IS this dreary, or is she describing it poorly, bcz she's been led to believe this is what we want to hear in order to dole out approval, and actually there is other stuff going on? And if it IS indeed the former, how much is this brought to be by the fact of the latter: eg that the entire scene has fashioned itself in conformity to a model of media-approved behaviour which it's READ about

[r.cook used to say, i want to change the way jazz is written about, bcz that will change the way it is played]

the elephant in the room is the constraints on how we are able to WRITE abt music --- our information sources as pre-formed product
 
"Hey - I just give the 'genre' a new name "Carling Boybands". Can I edit the NME now?"

That'd make you a Carling Boyeditor.

And her a Carling Girlfreelancer.

And it's a brand now: NMEdotfuckingCOM
 
Goldie Lookin Chain is what you are lookin for, no one seems to have spotted this though, they are the Fugs of the C21st....
also they did th being famous via web/mp3 WELL before Arctic Monkeys but do they get the credit? no!
 
Jolly what! So it's all come down to the Antic Monkees. I died for THIS???
 
The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living
 
It sounds to me like some of you just don't like the form capitalism is taking right now, and would prefer the old capitalism when bands were REALLY VITAL
 
Forget rock and all its pseudo-situationist pretentions! 'The kids' find their 'community' watching happy slap videos, gang bangs, and near-facistic violent games. You want disgust? Outrage? Millions of 16-year olds love the above, and hardly anyone's batting an eyelid... did I mention how common weapons are amongst 'the kids' these days (believe me, I've seen 'em)? 'Yoof' sees music/ak as just another diversion - some of 'em are actually engaging with REAL LIFE, believe it or not. But hey, it ain't real til a hack gives it a tidy generic title, right? - AGUIRRE ANON
 
History will make fools of us all.

Who first said this, when and why?
 
Post a Comment
spacer