"Standing the test of time": Tom's Poptimist Column #11

No defense mounting here! But more thoughts in a sec on that point, but first:

The thing that stands out for me the most is the final part, actually, because it opens up a huge can of worms over the idea of what being 'wrong' is all about! Which would make it a great lead in for an essay on the subject in #12.

Using That Marsh Rant is a good anchor for the piece -- it's an undermining and reversal of the patronizing tone of Marsh in the end, it seems to me, to the point where Tom can use a feather-light touch of patronization back on Marsh's ill-tempered 'I/you' rant (and this is not negatively meant; in fact that's a brilliantly effective way to counteract the vitriol while still engaging everything about it!).

As for 'standing etc.' -- a quick google on my part indicates that while I've used it, I've used it in terms of specific retrospection, looking back on reissues, greatest hits or just old albums, and in all those cases extremely sparingly and often with qualifiers. I'd argue there's a place for that use -- heck, reissues themselves usually means somebody cares somewhere, enough to justify the economic outlay, though this is likely to go more by the wayside in the eternally reissued moment of right now via mp3/rar -- as opposed to an initial 'this'll last forever!' reaction to something newly released or getting a lot of attention. So to turn a point of Tom's around a bit, it can be a simple appeal to yesterday to justify today's opinions.

One not very profound thought on this is that in Marsh's heyday, acquiring music cost (most) people money. So buying a record that you enjoy now, but are not likely to enjoy down the road, seems like a worse use of resources than buying a record you're likely to continue to enjoy a while. Nowadays I think this argument is less convincing, because of the widespread low-cost available of music. But critical tropes can last long past the time when they were convincing.

Euler OTM. I have vivid memories of counting the number of songs on used CDs as a kid, but had never connected that activity to incipient rockism.

That's a whole other split that I always find myself wanting to shorthand into reviews, because I feel like you can often hear that mindset in the way people put records together. When I was a kid and had $10 to spend on one tape, I wasn't so inclined to get something with a really specific sound, useful for a really specific mood; I'd want the sort of solid pop-band album that cuts across different styles and tempos, where every song wants to be tight and listenable, so I could put it in my Walkman and listen to it repeatedly for weeks. Different modes of listening make that not nearly as important now, but whenever I come across a record that still has or shoots for that quality, it seems like a notable thing (and kind of a generous one) to get across -- I just with there were a slightly less cliched review shorthand for it!

i have heard people argue that you shouldn't make any critical assessments of things as they happen and should wait some period of time -- 5, 10, 20 years -- for the verdict of history. which is a total misunderstanding of how history works. the point dave marsh was missing is that part of what determines how well something "lasts" is how much excitement it generates in the present. people who wait around for or appeal to "history" are really just accepting the accumulated enthusiasm or disdain that starts to accrete as soon as the first person hears the first song. so if you love m.i.a. or panda bear, the things you say or write about them now have an effect on how they end up being seen at some indeterminate point in the future.

and also of course the judgment of history is never actually rendered, because there's no endpoint, so people go in and out of fashion, are repudiated or rediscovered (often in tandem with current trends that seem somehow derivative of or influenced by things that happened earlier), and the canon is constantly being reshuffled. it's an interesting process, but it's all ONE process, starting with the pre-release pitchfork review and continuing on through the critical dialogue of decades to come. justifying a current like or dislike on the speculative basis of some future like or dislike at a random point in that dialogue is just basically meaningless.

(in a probably drunken argument about this sort of thing with a friend, i remember spluttering, "you can't be a historian of the future! you have to be a historian of NOW!")

http://www.bmi.com/images/musicworld/h/hall_and_oates_1_500.jpg

this is actually a good example of the problem with the phrase. a lot of people i know (not necessarily music geeks) would see this image and say "lol, 80s dorks" but H&O get tons of love here, so it just comes down to a question of audience

I tell myself,
"Hey! Only fools rush in"
Only time will tell
If we stand the test of time
All I know
You've got to run to win and
I'll damned if i'll get caught up on the line. Hey!

No, I can't recall anything at all
Oh baby, this blows 'em all away

I was waiting for someone to quote that.

song sort of works as a metaphor for critical infatuation, those moments of trying to figure out whether something you like is REALLY good. why can't THIS be love, panda bear?

Last few sentences nail it.

what if you only stand the test of time in cleveland or china and are always remembered THERE and nowhere else? does that mean that you stand the test of a time zone? it's all kind of parochial. when maria lived in holland she couldn't believe that nobody there had heard of james taylor. here, his best songs are "classics" that will last for generations, blah, blah,blah. er, to some people anyway. to boomers or whoever. but they run things so they have the final say for now. you just have to wait until pitchfork readers run ALL the ad agencies. and then james taylor will cease to exist.
i always think people are talking about themselves when they say something is so great that it will last forever. they really just want their memory to last forever. their memory of how great that song was and how great they felt and how great they were. they want THAT to last forever and to say that that won't last forever means that they will die and this makes people sad.

I like the column, but what about the possibility that Marsh meant that Smiths vs Lionel Richie remark facetitiously? I know he's not a chap known for a sense of humor, but something about the tone of that phrase (and how he discussed, say, Donna Summer and Newcleus) suggests he was giving a huge wink.

I dunno, hate to swim against the tide of Dave Marsh: Whipping Boy #11, but talk about standing the test of time, if Tom is still haunted by a 24-year-old Dave Marsh quote, it says something for the Marsh quote. Music has duration more than it has "space," whatever that means. Listening to a piece of music means giving up a percentage of your life to it. It's kind of natural to associate music and time. Give Marsh a little credit. His use of the phrase "sad cafe ballads" might mean that he has evaluated "sad cafe ballads" and found them lacking. By categorizing Smiths songs that way, he's placing them in the context of songs he's heard in the past. He's saying, hey, I'm Dave Marsh, and I've heard a lot of music. Among the types of music I've heard are sad cafe ballads, and they're not worth moping about. So quit being a sad sack and start listening to some Lionel Richie and you'll thank me for it in the morning.

Actually I have no idea what Dave Marsh might have been trying to say. There's not much context in that one-liner.

and we haven't answered the essential question: "Please Please Please Let Me Get What I Want" vs "Penny Lover."

Marsh wasn't kidding at all. He really hated the Smiths. He also wrote an amazing piece on Lionel Richie in this one Rock Yearbook I have.

Thus Sang Freud: Ewing explicitly refers to The Heart of Rock & Soul book as a classic in the last couple grafs. Even if he completely disagrees with Marsh on most points, and I'm guessing he does, I can't see him hanging an entire essay on that one line as anything but testament to Marsh--even if it's primarily testament to Marsh's ability to get Ewing going.

x-post: If Tom remembers the quote it would surely say more about Marsh standing the test of time than it does about The Smiths or Lionel Richie.

Marsh can make a good argument about why you should listen to Lionel rather than the Smiths but "meet me at the end of the millenium" isn't really one of them. I suspect it's a throwaway line, but one Marsh beleves. Sometimes you can have your tongue in cheek and be perfectly honest at the same time.

"Music has duration more than it has "space," whatever that means. Listening to a piece of music means giving up a percentage of your life to it. It's kind of natural to associate music and time."

Sure, but why does that necessitate an objective test? Why can't "time" refer to something more complex and individual? The example I always think of is The Avalanches' Since I Left You, which I listened to so much in 2000/early 2001 that I cannot listen to it now (although I don't have the same problem with the Gimix mix, curiously, given the massive overlap). Arguably the album has therefore failed such a test, although it might suddenly be performing well in 5 years time. But who cares? The mileage I got in the period after the album came out was more than enough to guarantee that I got an excessive "return" on my "investment" - I just chose to spend up big at the time. Why is this one year of intense value worth less than the much smaller dividends paid by those albums I listen to four or five times every year? Why is my memory of that intense enjoyment meaningless?

The emphasis on consistent longevity strikes me as weirdly parsimonious and protestant - it works better for practical household items like boots and dishwashers where, once you've made your initial investment, you don't want to have to think about it, you just want it to function (the "memory" of how my dishwasher used to work so well provides me with scant comfort once it breaks).

In fact I'd venture that one of the implications of the "we'll still be listening to this in twenty years time..." is "...so we don't have to think about it any further, it's already proved itself to us." As if thinking about music was only part of some elaborate time-based qualification round (a rather complicated twenty year warranty that makes you feel more comfortable buying that dishwasher album).

A subjectivist attempt to "save" this line of thought - it's about the longterm maximization of personal enjoyment - ends up undermining the value of all sorts of transient cultural activities: going to art exhibitions, films, concerts, sporting events etc.

These activities retain validity under the "objectivist" version: even if most people would only see the actual Mona Lisa once if it all, the ongoing overall interest in visiting the painting justifies its continuing historical relevance.

But of course this is just triumphant sociological positivism dressed up as argument - and indeed, anyone who agreed with the objectivist argument and had also been to the Louvre and seen the ridiculous circus act that goes on around the Mona Lisa would almost certainly want to distinguish the immortality of their favourite album from the "Most Photographed Barn in America" style antics at the gallery.

Perhaps they'd draw up a table of "real" and "false" examples of ongoing relevance, with people who take their photograph in front of a famous painting falling into the latter category (alongside, perhaps, people who simply buy albums that are currently popular because of their popularity).

But already they're moving away from a simple belief in history as arbiter. Already they're saying history is an arbiter when they say so, when it backs up their arguments for the right reasons. Already they're impliedly admitting that what makes any album important is not its objective social longevity but the subjectively-perceived qualities of the music they probably identified in the first few weeks of listening.

I'm not suggesting Marsh was kidding, or didn't mean what he wrote; it's the tone of his sentence that belies his seriousness.

I'd almost see your point, Alfred, but Marsh is too straight a shooter for me to interpret it any other way.

"As for 'standing etc.' -- a quick google on my part indicates that while I've used it, I've used it in terms of specific retrospection, looking back on reissues, greatest hits or just old albums, and in all those cases extremely sparingly and often with qualifiers. I'd argue there's a place for that use -- heck, reissues themselves usually means somebody cares somewhere, enough to justify the economic outlay, though this is likely to go more by the wayside in the eternally reissued moment of right now via mp3/rar -- as opposed to an initial 'this'll last forever!' reaction to something newly released or getting a lot of attention. So to turn a point of Tom's around a bit, it can be a simple appeal to yesterday to justify today's opinions."

Yes I'd agree with this Ned. But it seems to be more of a simple musicological argument with a lot less heat in it. In fact the explosion of reissues over the last ten years itself handily disproves the future-tilted claim, as the breadth of stuff that's been reissued far and away exceeds any one critic's taxonomy of what will and won't be relevant in the future. Even Marillion got lavish 2-disc reissues for all their albums (80s and 90s). The "long tail" argument is relevant here: if music fan culture is so fragmented, with people getting "off the bus" at every stop, the more interesting question from an objectivist point of view is less "what will be remembered" and more "what actually successful music won't be remembered, and why?" Once we accept that a lot of music we personally dislike still possesses a lot of longevity (at least for enough listeners to justify reissues), this becomes less an issue of quality and more one of how patterns of taste and memory work over time.

A big factor here surely being the ongoing public profile of the artist. I recommended Eleanor Academia's "Adventure" from 1987 to a friend recently, assuming it was an obscure (commercial flop) piece of synth-pop/R&B that had a bigger profile now (through fashionable obscurantism) than at the time of its release. Turns out it went to no. 1 in the US! Except I have never been exposed to this tune in any context except hip obscurantist revivalism - the market for it now is entirely different to its market then, clearly. What are the conditions that allow this to happen?

as a sidenote: when did Marsh become pegged as a fuddydudd? The Heart of Rock & Soul has plenty of oh-shit unexpected selections. I mentioned Newcleus and Donna Summer, but also "Don't Dream It's Over" and his championing of Madonna.

Yeah, of course he's not kidding -- and it's not at all unreasonable that he'd think that, at the time: presuming that Richie will be preserved in the popular sentimental realm of songs that get played at weddings 25 years down the road, and that the Smiths were connected with passing style, with the vogue of a particular elite. (If he were talking about a different Richie single, in fact, he wouldn't sound nearly as much like he'd turned out wrong.)

The funny part is that looking at them in the "test of space" way might have led to a different call on the "test of time" part: the Richie might serve a kind of eternal purpose, but it's a purpose that's re-served every season by new songs; unless you're one of the people who needed it that particular season, there's not as much reason to keep the Richie around. Whereas the Smiths serve a purpose that's similarly eternal, only in a form that's not frequently replicated in quite the same way (and a form that creates the kinds of attachments people go out of their way to try and pass on, over time).

This is obviously one of the ways that the "test of time" can trend toward rockism, right: I think there's an assumption in there that things like conventions and great singing voices and technical skill can always be replicated, will always be educated into replacements down the line -- whereas test-of-time music will be more sui generis, something you keep around because you can't get it elsewhere. In that sense, the "test of time" is code for something else, something about scarcity and ease of replacement (which doesn't actually wind up mapping onto timelessness in anything like a direct way).

I recommended Eleanor Academia's "Adventure" from 1987 to a friend recently, assuming it was an obscure (commercial flop) piece of synth-pop/R&B that had a bigger profile now (through fashionable obscurantism) than at the time of its release. Turns out it went to no. 1 in the US!

Really? Billboard number 1? I have no memory of a song by that name at all!

when did Marsh become pegged as a fuddydudd?

I have seen the future of inescapable canonization...

Actually, the most interesting parts of the Test of Time really are secretly matters of the Test of Space: a lot of how long things "last" is really a question of (a) whether it's the kind of thing the present will bother forcing on the future, and (b) how successfully they'll be able to do it -- what are you willing to push on people ten years younger than you, and what are they chances they'll go for it?

(I.e., this has a lot to do with that lottery effect that Carl Wilson spends a little time on in his 33 1/3 -- the future will mostly be making Test of Time judgments on the things we bother carrying along and submitting to it, so who knows what the future would think of the stuff we push out of competition in the here and now?) (Answer = the reissue industry, that's who.)

"Really? Billboard number 1? I have no memory of a song by that name at all!"

In the US and Germany apparently. It's a great song! DJ Naughty included it on his One Night in Berlin mix a few years back.

Eleanor now makes "evolvian soul rock" and pimps out as a motivational speaker to high-level executives.

"Yeah, of course he's not kidding -- and it's not at all unreasonable that he'd think that, at the time: presuming that Richie will be preserved in the popular sentimental realm of songs that get played at weddings 25 years down the road, and that the Smiths were connected with passing style, with the vogue of a particular elite."

This is connected to Tom's (good and not obvious) point in the article that once a sound is being dismissed as a "fad" it has gone beyond that level and necessarily has greater longevity than the critic dismissing it assumes.

Perhaps echoing Nabisco's comments, what strikes me as a potential common thread amongst stuff that is forgotten is the lack of a supportive context like a genre or mode of listening or artist-career-history that can boost up the particular song on a wave of revivalism (in the "rising tide (of a particular genre's revival) lifts all ships" sense).

Thinking about a quintessential "one hit wonder" - something like Deep Blue Something's "Breakfast at Tiffanies" - the question about its capacity for longevity might be subject to a second question: "to what extent can this song be seen as something bigger than itself?"

In this case it won't be the career of the artist. If a Deep Blue Something revival is possible, it might be because people at some stage people are able to tie their one big record in with the big songs by the Bodeans and, I dunno, the Gin Blossoms, and other such stuff. If this seems unlikely, it's because such a process seems tenuous at best.

Whereas a revival at some stage of even the most transient dance sub-genres has the aura of near-inevitability if only because the songs being revived are articulated within a sub-genre. So handbag house and Ibiza trance-pop revivals become a question of when rather than if.

Why I raise the (arguably disconnected) issue of revivalism here is that, as far as I can tell, once something has been revived, if never quite sinks back to the same level of dismissal or indifference that may have characterised people's attitudes to it before. It's as if this process itself is another form of the "qualification round" I mentioned above. Cycles of revivalism constitute another form of the "big tail" phenonenon: while the 80s only entered a strong revivalist era about 8 years ago, this didn't coincide with people ceasing to revive the 60s and 70s. Rather, we now see all of these eras (and parts of the early 90s) being revived simultaneously, albeit in shifting and mutating articulations.

The eternal present. Which I don't really mind -- does anyone, I wonder? (Serious question!)

ya gotta remember, when marsh wrote that he was living in a world where things DID go away.

I like that this thread on Jennifer Paige's "Crush" was just revived.

In posing the question, Dom provides an example of what I'm getting at with my Deep Blue Something thing:

"Can we talk about "Crush" by Jennifer Paige

Because I don't think we discuss it enough.
It's kind of tempting to see this as the plainer, less popular sister of "Can't Fight The Moonlight" (despite preceeding it by two years), but... I don't know. The vocals marked the last time in popular music anyone attempted to try and sound older than they actually were (you know how when "NU-GARAGE" happened all the indie bands that had turned up in the past six months suddenly got wiped off the radar? Britney/Xtina/Mandy Moore had the same impact on pop). "

In pop, I think a lot of songs that are vulnerable to being forgotten are those whose attractions are drawn from an era whose time is ending. Another example of this process (albeit a much less interesting or enjoyable song) is Debelah Morgan's "Dance With Me" (or was it "Dance For Me"?), whose popularity seemed based on its mid-to-late 90s R&B conservatism at a time when the listening public were still getting their heads around millenial post-Timbaland R&B specifically and R&B/hip hop crossover generally.

Whereas Mary Mary's "Shackles" lives on by articulating this same impulse within something bigger than itself (modern R&B meets gospel) - it serves an ongoing purpose, particularly in a post-Idol world.

Tim, which US chart was Eleanor Academia atop at some point? Because it wasn't the pop chart.

i would have to remember "shackles" to forget it. is that a real song or did you make it up?

who can forget the summer of academia-mania.

sly fox should probably be used as an example for everything from now on. or sam fox.

OK, her website is lying. She's not even in Billboard's archive.

Yeah, I was going to say, that name was giving me major cognitive dissonance.

Eleanor also wrote and produced her smash hit, Adventurefor Columbia Records, reaching No.#1 on the Billboard Charts in the U.S. and Germany. Now a cult favorite, Re-mixed produced versions of Adventureare played throughout the world.

sly fox should probably be used as an example for everything from now on.

Oh for Ned's eternal present in which this song blasted at all hours...

aha--I'm wrong. It did in fact go to No. 1 on the Hot Dance Club Play chart in 1988. (It was credited to Eleanor, no surname.)

Yep, you can't pass something along to the future without a bag to put it in. Things properly packaged to stand a test of time, as of 2008: (a) big pop singles that enter into the eternity of radios and PA systems, (b) specific albums or artist back catalogs, (c) singles that can be compiled as some kind of coherent style or moment. I.e., it's kinda impossible to make an album that's half timeless.

There's kind of a distinction here, though, between stylistic timelessness and lottery-effect timelessness; everything that people will say makes a 60s soul chestnut "timeless" is just as true of some 60s soul song that never went anywhere. So there are two edges to it: is it the kind of music that's "timeless," or has it just had some sort of success or effect or role in the world (Test of Space!) that will make it so?

Okay I've only skimmed this thread but my initial thoughts are:

- I think Matos has probably got Tom's approach wrong - I suspect Tom had been looking to write something about 'standing the test of time' as subject to rally against for some time and plucked the Marsh quote as a convenient starting point.

- Is it possible Tom is shadowboxing a bit here? I know he's writing for a predominantly US indie audience (which might be shaping his argument) but in UK pop listening the 'this won't stand the test of time' argument seems like an outdated one to rail against. I can't remember the last time ANYONE used this line seriously wrt British pop, largely because revivalism of the least credible aspects of British pop is pretty much British music's modus operandi now. And even among the most indie of listeners it's widely accepted that 70s chart disco has lasted as well if not better than the rock music of its time.

"is it the kind of music that's "timeless,"

yes. in marsh's case, anyway.

or the kind of song.

revivalism of the least credible aspects of British pop is pretty much British music's modus operandi

This is true of the hardest core of U.S. indie audiences too, though (which is sometimes a good thing, sometimes not): one of the easiest ways to break out of the pack in any music-saturated hipster milieu is to go about recuperating whatever influence seems most unlikely (and therefore most idiosyncratically yours). It's almost a weird micro scale of fragmentation and specialization -- if every guy in your neighborhood has a band, you have a vested interest in figuring out which style only you go for, and self-consciously developing that background. (Plus it allows you to seem interesting when people come over to your apartment and look through your records.)

I think Matos has probably got Tom's approach wrong - I suspect Tom had been looking to write something about 'standing the test of time' as subject to rally against for some time and plucked the Marsh quote as a convenient starting point.

where have I said otherwise?

I always find it odd that the sound of 60s soul would be called "timeless". Doesn't this crit shorthand actually mean: "it sounds just like the 60s, and the 60s don't go out of fashion"?

I shouldn't have put it past Eleanor to lie to me.

"And even among the most indie of listeners it's widely accepted that 70s chart disco has lasted as well if not better than the rock music of its time."

BUT I think this argument only ever fully loses its force in retrospect. A lot of people who will acknowledge this point w/r/t 70s disco don't anticipate the same thing might some day apply to late 90s disco-pop vis a vis late 90s guitar rock. The way that this is achieved is to retrospectively introduce the "test of time" arguments in ways it might not have been at the time of the music's initial release - e.g. "Moroder and Larry Levan and Niles Rogers were geniuses whose music was always going to stand the test of time even if many people back then were too blind to see it. Luckily "we" know better now." Pipecock's approach to the history of dance music is an extreme form of this.

Also the "predominantly US indie audience" is an issue here. I've gotten a lot of e-mails from Pitchfork readers citing the "test of time" argument every time I write about pop (Justin, Girls Aloud etc.). I suspect Tom might have gotten some of these too.

Also I think the point of the article is less "Pitchfork rock versus UK pop" and more the extent to which the notion is used to say that stuff you like is better or worse than other stuff you like. Tom's M.I.A. versus Panda Bear argument makes sense here, though the elephant in the room (which he half acknowledges) is LCD Soundsystem, and the way in which a lot of even well-written reviews of "All My Friends" etc. work the fashion/immortality angle frantically - in sum, "we still liked James Murphy when his music was just fleetingly fashionable, but we like him even more now that he is writing songs for eternity."

One important thing to note is that such an argument isn't even per se wrong, but I find it interesting how it's so insidiously interwoven into music crit language that it's inadvertantly implied much more than deliberately wheeled out.

i agree. most people are pretty trad and safe though.

they like solidity. or the appearance of solidity.

if something seems or feels ephemeral than it can't be meant to last, no? um, by definition.

example of something or other (by david fricke not dave marsh):

"Humanity, of all things, is the critical advantage that British synth-pop trio Heaven 17 enjoys over most of its technopeers. The Luxury Gap, Heaven 17's second album, finds the group combating drum-machine monotony and passionless synthesizer riffing with such touches as hearty blasts of real Earth, Wind and Fire brass on the funk-strut "Key to the World." On the U.K. hit single "Temptation," guest vocalist Karol Kenyon's glowing gospel wail soars over an ambitious mix of ping-pong electronics and swelling Philadelphia International strings, while the frenetic "Crushed by the Wheels of Industry" combines the cool snap of plug-in percussion and sly industrial sound effects with a jazzy piano solo and the migraine boom of real drums.

What's more, singer Glenn Gregory and synthesizer players Martyn Ware and Ian Craig Marsh spike their classy dance songs with a sharp pinch of political defiance. The cynical cut of songs like "Crushed by the Wheels of Industry" ("It's time for a party/Syncopation for the nation now!") and "Let's All Make a Bomb" ("Let's celebrate and vapourize") is a hard slap in the face of the never-mind-the-apocalypse, let's-party ethic dominating current British pop. Heaven 17 is hardly the Clash of the computer age, but the group's stylish subversions on The Luxury Gap show that the trio is closing in. (RS 403)"

see, he likes them cuz they might actually own lionel ritchie records. by way of the commodores, but still...

i don't know about other countries, but people here have ALWAYS been annoying like this. and i like david fricke. but it's normal reflexive behaviour among most most critics. for such a young country, it's amazing how many past-fuckers there are out there. they hear EVERYTHING thru that lens of pastfuckery.

But if Marsh didn't appreciate the ephemeral in pop music wouldn't he be more likely to defend the Smiths over Lionel Richie? I think he's arguing fun music trumps sourpuss music. Longevity-wise.

See it's not even like the above line on Heaven 17 is necessarily wrong (except I only know the hits by Heaven 17 and those hardly strike me as ostentatiously "human"), and I've run similar arguments before myself.

But rather than set up a real vs semblance dichotomy I think in cases like the above it's more interesting to investigate the "semblance of reality" (or in scott's words "the appearance of solidity") - that is, how does the music create the effect of seeming "human"? What I like about the above quote is that it specifies technical aspects of the music that lead to this outcome. What is less clear is whether Fricke has any critical distance from the "critical advantage" he identifies - is humanity self-evidently superior to machinism, or is it just Heaven 17's point of distinction? Is being the Clash of the computer age something that all denizens of the computer age should aspire to?

To go back to the thread topic, the weirdest thing about using the "will people listen to this in 30 years' time" argument to back up one's real vs semblance dichotomies is that it's delegating authority to a bunch of total unknowns whose tastes in music you probably won't even approve of.

Given the contemporary music that's currently popular (emo, mainstream rap, High School Musical etc.) why should the fact that teenagers also still buy The Dark Side of the Moon be a point in its favour from the standpoint of rock conservativism? It amounts to saying "This album is so good that even today's clueless kids with their awful taste and hideous racket will like it!"

I still think that timelessness is an important factor. I am aware this goes against teenpop, as most people will regret a lot of the stuff they liked as kids, while on the other hand, you cannot use the argument against MOR as big MOR hits tend to last forever as they appeal to older people who care less about trends.

But still, it is important. Although, to me, the biggest triumph is when you manage to combine huge sales with critical acclaim. Like Beatles, Bowie, Pink Floyd and several others.

"is humanity self-evidently superior to machinism"

yes! in the states anyway. which just drives me bonkers when it comes to music. i mean, i'm all for humanism and i have a healthy fear of robot attack. but that coddling of anything warm or fuzzy...the politics in heaven 17's music means that they aren't just making music for no reason! like they have to actually contribute to the war effort AND make music. AND they have a healthy dose of all-this-stuff-i-already-know-i-like in their music. kudos! can there be a worse epithet than certain american critics dismissing your album as "cold" or "clinical". apple-cheeked motherfuckers.

Geir, you mean: older people die or become hard of hearing sooner, thus have less chance to change their minds re the music they have purchased.

"can there be a worse epithet than certain american critics dismissing your album as "cold" or "clinical"."

Robert Christgau to thread etc.

i used to think things would get better once the dinosaurs stopped roaming the earth, but generation next doesn't exactly fill me with hope. not when brian friggin' wilson is held up as the son of god for twenty years or more. (sorry, geir.) there is just so much timidity out there. again, this is the u.s. i'm talking about. i should really think about expanding my boundaries!

which is why i just root for the internet and various people who plug away in unknown corners and quarters and hold cool shiny stuff up to the light.

Thinking about a quintessential "one hit wonder... its capacity for longevity might be subject to a second question: "to what extent can this song be seen as something bigger than itself

I need to find some time to absorb this entire thread, which looks great, but I don't get this claim at all. What about something like, say, "99 Luftballons" or "Tubthumping" or "Ice Ice Baby" (all still fairly well-known -- at least as well known as that Deep Blue Something song, I'm sure -- by people who only casually pay attention to music, I would think, but I doubt most of these people remember the songs because they're identified with a specific genre, or scene -- though maybe, sure, with some moment in their life. If they were even alive then, which some probably weren't.) (Okay, maybe "Ice Ice Baby" is connected with "rap music, which it did wrong" or something, but there are hundreds of other examples, I'm sure, from every conceivable decade.)

M.I.A. has political content and world music influences in her favor

A little stumped by this in Tom's essay, too -- just wondering why he thinks music with political content and world influences tends to be better remembered, on balance, than music without. Not saying he's wrong, but doesn't the party line frequently say that topical lyrics get "dated" more quickly, once their concerns (not that I have much idea what M.I.A.'s concerns are, and I expect plenty of others who love her music don't either) are no longer on the front page? (Though I suppose the longevity of, oh, "War" by Edwin Starr wasn't hurt by being a war protest.) Just strikes me as counter-intuitive, so I'm wondering where Tom's assumption came from.

To be honest, it just always surprises me how people that are in their early twenties are still getting excited about and becoming so immersed in all sorts of music that I was listening to 15 years or so ago. I'm not sure to what degree that is a commentary on how uninspiring those "kids" find contemporary music to be, or whether it's just that there is some impetus for people to retreat back into some paleolithic-era cultural cave. I realize that there are in fact tons of young people excited about (chronologically) new music, but it still seems like there is now more than ever a head to the retro hills mentality going on. I don't know.

i'm still a little confused about marsh's original statement: basically, he's saying that if you wait a hundred years or whatever and play lionel ritchie's song it will still sound great and if you play the smiths it's not gonna sound so great. right?

I think he meant by Jan 1, 2000.

xp

Or maybe the logic is:

Politics = Importance ---> Longevity ?

Just not sure how often that actually happens in practice. Also:

Pop music which wears its profundity on its sleeve, like Pink Floyd, seems to outlast stuff that wears complexity likewise

Again, intriguing, and possible, just not sure if I buy it. (For one thing, don't Pink Floyd wear both profundity and complexity on their sleeve? And even if their sleeve only houses the former, is that really how the people who still buy Dark Side of the Moon {or even The Wall} hear it? If anything, they're talked about as being spectacles. And real cool with headphones on.)

Dark Side of the Moon's longevity on the charts is all part of some vast rockist conspiracy, though, right?

"Tubthumping" = sport commercials. See also in this category: Blur's "Song 2".

"99 Luftballoons" = crazy bizarre German pop song from the 80s (sometimes "one hit wonder" can be its own category, but it's usually "one hit wonder... OMGWTF"). Also I think you'd find that there is very low awareness of this song among people in their late twenties and younger, esp. when compared to songs from the same era with a similar vibe produced by artists with longer-term successful careers (e.g. "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Girls Just Want To Have Fun").

"Ice Ice Baby" = absolute club standard - on mainstream dancefloors filled with young people who weren't around at the time it is not really distinguished from "Funky Cold Medina" or "Bust A Move".

I'm not saying that one hit wonders tend not to be remembered. Or that in order to be remembered they must be exemplary of genre. I'm saying that there needs to be some sort of extra-song "tag" which serves as a bookmark for them in the pages of ephemeral pop culture. I chose Deep Blue Something as my example because it remains to be seen whether they will end up with such a tag.

What's interesting about the songs you mention, chuck, is that, with the exception of Vanilla Ice, I'm willing to bet a whole heap of people who remember the song wouldn't remember the name of the artist or group who made it. Surely this makes their cultural persistence a more tenuous, bitterly fought thing - "Tubthumping" practically lives and dies on the number of times it gets played on the radio or in a commercial, whereas at least "Song 2" has the advantage of belonging in two categories here - a) sports-related one hit wonder; and b) part of the back-catalogue of a band who enjoyed moderate long-term success. Even if "Song 2" stopped being evocative of the expenditure of energy on the field, it would have a large group of people actively remembering it on account of it belonging to group (b).

I mean the real "test" of revivalism has to be if people who weren't around at the time get into it.

What's been notable about the last few years of 80s revivalism is that it's most enthusiastic market is people aged 16-23 or so.

I wondered about that too. And at least some Zep probably wears more 'complexity' than 'profundity' on its sleeve.

But this "standing the test of time" thing - When critics say it, are they really just referring to audience size, as he seems to suggest, by which standard the Eagles (or Yes, for that matter) have stood the test of time better than the Velvet Underground or Kraftwerk or Patti Smith, Bon Jovi (and prob Lionel Richie on the whole) has stood the test of time better than the Smiths, and John Williams has possibly stood the test of time better than any other postwar composer?

xpost to xhuxk on Pink Floyd and complexity/profundity

xpost!

"Something bigger than itself" can be a social moment that seems suddenly remote and exotic, though -- much more than a musical trend. So:

- "99 Luftballons," in defiance of the lyrics, pegs a weird moment of Cold War optimism where Americans sent balloons into the air at high-school graduations, before we realized they were winding up stuck in blowholes and killing dolphins and stuff; see also "Forever Young," later

- "Tubthumping" seems as inextricably of-the-90s as any of those 70s things that seem bizarre and inextricably 70s if you weren't around for them (say, Starland Vocal Band)

- "Ice Ice Baby" is arm in arm with MC Hammer as the ultimate representative of huge teeny pop-rap, and surely reads to some very young people as a very foreign piece of kitsch -- it's far more of that moment and style (and better for jokes, &c.) than something that has a little more continuity with where rap was and proceeded to go, like Young MC

The issue with that Heaven 17 bit is just the same kind of category problem we all probably run into, somewhere in our thinking: "This is the best group in its genre because it's not as directly committed to the point of that genre (which I am skeptical about)." E.g.: Nightmare of You are the best mall-rock band because they sound more like Morrissey than mall-rock.

"99 Luftballoons" = crazy bizarre German pop song from the 80s (sometimes "one hit wonder" can be its own category, but it's usually "one hit wonder... OMGWTF"). Also I think you'd find that there is very low awareness of this song among people in their late twenties and younger, esp. when compared to songs from the same era with a similar vibe produced by artists with longer-term successful careers (e.g. "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Girls Just Want To Have Fun").

Nah, fwiw I've heard the Nena song played in clubs by young twenty-somethings far more than I've heard the Bangles or Cyndi Lauper played. In fact, I think the only time I've heard the Bangles or Cyndi Lauper played in public venues has been at "eighties nights" helmed by thirtysomethings.

xpost to myself: And if that is the standard, then it seems pointless to even consider Panda Bear or Battles in these terms.

(xpost to Sundar: it's interesting if you think of the test of time as relative to the original audience, actually -- an obscure band that becomes "influential" has benefited from the years, whereas a hugely popular band that winds up moderately popular has still been chipped away at)

(xpost on Nena: it has benefited from some modicum of current-day cred in that it sounds a little new-wavey in the punk sense, and thus isn't interpreted as much as retro or kitsch -- it has basically benefited from the Ramones standing the Test of Time, since it's essentially in that kind of songwriting mold)

Ha ha I've found the opposite, or rather I'd argue that the reason "99 Luft Balloons" gets more play at electro-themed nights is precisely because the DJ expects most of the audience not to know it*, whereas the Bangles and Cyndi Lauper are much more of an actively retro/2 Many DJs kind of thing.

*The same reason that Gina X Performance and Lene Lovich are so popular among electroclash/electro-house types - if we can't remember the original context for this stuff we are free to invent our own. Likewise, perhaps if "Adventure" actually had been a no. 1 US hit DJ Naughty wouldn't have been so inclined to use it.

Which certainly adds a complicating twist to the line of argument I'm running. Although nabisco's "can be a social moment that seems suddenly remote and exotic" partially anticipates this. Perhaps the connections that post-electroclash DJs make between disparate material from the 80s are not the same connections that could have been made at the time, precisely because listeners/DJs were not "post-electroclash".

x-post with Nabisco of course.

xp I honestly had no idea that people associate "Tumbthumping" with sports! (Though that would certainly make sense for select Tag Team and Gary Glitter songs -- and right, I agree, lots of sports fans wouldn't know, or care, who did those, either. So I do get that point. Though I'm not sure what it has to do with the song surviving the years.)

I think you'd find that there is very low awareness of this song among people in their late twenties and younger, esp. when compared to songs from the same era with a similar vibe produced by artists with longer-term successful careers (e.g. "Walk Like An Egyptian" or "Girls Just Want To Have Fun").

Not concinced of this, at all, but you might be right. (And of course, the U.S. could be different from the U.K. or Australia, too.) But I could just as well have picked, say, "Mickey" by Tony Basil (which is certainly remembered by plenty of people who were around in the '80s; not sure whether people a lot younger tend to know it or not.) Anyway, maybe these aren't the best examples. My point is just that there have been plenty of one-hit wonders that have lived on, on oldies radio or karaoke bars or wherever, decades after they should have flunked the stand-the-test-of-time test. And since most casual fans, I assume, don't care all that much about genres in the first place, it seems odd to pretend that's what they'd associate them with. (I.e., somebody was singing "Lovefool" by the Cardigans on an Office episode I saw recently; I don't even know what genre that song would be apart of myself [songs one starts singing when one is drunk??], and I write about music. And that was the American version of the show, and the song's presence rang totally true; on the Brit version it would've been an entirely different song.)

xpost to Sundar: it's interesting if you think of the test of time as relative to the original audience, actually -- an obscure band that becomes "influential" has benefited from the years, whereas a hugely popular band that winds up moderately popular has still been chipped away at

Yeah, I guessed that was part of it, but it wasn't articulated that way in the article as such. I was curious/playing dumb to clarify the point. But, I mean, the Eagles or Bon Jovi or John Williams have stood the test of time by any sort of audience-size standard, haven't they?

xp And what about something like, say, "Blister in the Sun" by the Violent Femmes, which actually wound up a bigger hit in posterity than it actually was it existed. (I've been getting the idea in recent months that that's happening with "Teaches of Peaches" by Peaches, which for some reason keeps winding up on myspace page of my kids' friends.)

(Maybe "Blister" was in a big movie, and got more famous that way? I have no idea.)

Actually, "Blitzkrieg Bop" (which I never heard on the radio in the late '70s or early '80s, except maybe on new wave specialty shows) might be the best example of this, come to think of it.

I think Sherriff's "When I'm With You" is the best example!

(Generally, an excellent article, though. Reminded me of why I started reading Freaky Trigger, and subsequently ILM, in the first place.)

Or, um, "Into the Night" by Benny Mardones! Though I'm not sure if that one or the Sheriff one are still remembered, even though they were hits twice.

xp

"...than it actually was when it existed..."

(And maybe the Peaches song is called "Fuck The Pain Away"? I'm not a fan, but people know the one I'm talking about, I'm sure.)

Xhuxk, I think part of why we're talking about 80s songs and "Lovefool" is that these things all succeeded on the basis of a certain kind of one-hit novelty, relative to peers on the charts. Which leaves them a little distinct -- or anyway in a slightly different game -- than remembering pop from career artists, or pop that's popular because it's closer to the conventions of the moment, or whatever. Kind of what I was saying about an issue of scarcity, earlier: obviously the stuff that's forgotten first is the stuff that's conventional enough that casual pop fans think of it as passing and second-tier -- you know, the big radio ballad that's only the third-best big radio ballad in the top 20 at that moment.

ha, xpost - Chuck, "Blister" is my favorite example of a steady, what ... 20-year growth on these terms? Even as a kid, I thought it was interesting that a 10-year-old song was somehow common currency among early-90s alternakids; I'd never imagined going a decade down the line and seeing it in commercials.

(xpost on Nena: it has benefited from some modicum of current-day cred in that it sounds a little new-wavey in the punk sense, and thus isn't interpreted as much as retro or kitsch -- it has basically benefited from the Ramones standing the Test of Time, since it's essentially in that kind of songwriting mold)

I'm not sure I follow your Ramones-connection, unless you're equating it with Bonzo goes to Bitburg or something.

And, Tim, the nights that I'm talking about are not particularly electro-clash nights...I've heard people play "99 Luftballoons" in any manner of contexts.

But the "Blister in the Sun" thing baffles me, as well. I can't imagine that it's just from being on the Reality Bites or Singles soundtrack, or whatever movie that it found its way into...

"99 Luftballons," in defiance of the lyrics, pegs a weird moment of Cold War optimism where Americans sent balloons into the air at high-school graduations, before we realized they were winding up stuck in blowholes and killing dolphins and stuff

I bet even fewer people associate the song with the Cold War now than did then. (And I was actually in Germany when it was a hit! And I knew what it was about! But I'm pretty sure most Americans just thought of it as a cute song by a cute German girl.)

"xp And what about something like, say, "Blister in the Sun" by the Violent Femmes, which actually wound up a bigger hit in posterity than it actually was it existed."

This is a good example of what I'm talking about though chuck: "Blister in the Sun" has been retrospectively validated critically as prescient proto-indie-rock. When I was at school the Violent Femmes were held up as being important precursors to grunge alongside The Pixies. This was in no way about the song's random one hit wonder status and entirely about it belonging to a historical lineage which retrospectively canonises it.

"My Sharona" - definitely canonised by young people through the "Reality Bites" soundtrack. That soundtrack had collosal importance for my peer group in terms of defining a whole raft of disparate music as somehow appropriate to some mindset of mid-90s cool.

Huh, I know I was hearing the Sherriff song all the time in diners and stuff like 5 yrs ago though I haven't heard it in a while, now that you mention it.

(I thought it was the Grosse Point Blank soundtrack that revived/made the VF song?)

(Like, WTF did it have to do with grunge?)

Both "Blister in the Sun" and "My Sharona" have transcended those categorisations now, but I would argue this was possible because of those initial processes of redemption - which ties back to my point that once something has been revived it never sinks back entirely.

"(Like, WTF did it have to do with grunge?)"

I know! But teenagers can be quite imaginative with their explanatory leaps.

add scarequotes to my use of the word "transcended" plz.

"My Sharona" - definitely canonised by young people through the "Reality Bites" soundtrack. That soundtrack had collosal importance for my peer group in terms of defining a whole raft of disparate music as somehow appropriate to some mindset of mid-90s cool.

Interesting...are you in U.K. or U.S.? Because in the U.S. it seems to have been all-but-forgotten among the younger crowd, at least as far as I can tell.

(Maybe Sheriff stood the test of time better in Canada?)

dell: What's all-but-forgotten? "My Sharona" or Reality Bites?

(Both seem a bit unlikely to me.)

"My Sharona" (among the young peoples).

The Ramones connection with the Nena isn't lyrical, it's just the chugging-along new-wavy eighth-note thing in the verses, between the vamps! Which has remained a basic rock commonplace from 1976 to the present day.

I can't imagine finding a flipping point for "Blister" -- I think it's just that by 1991 or so it had reached this status as a commonplace and an outsider anthem for "alternative" kids, and the normalization of "alternative" over the following years gradually buoyed it upward. It surely helps that the first Femmes album is so teenagey, which means that about 25 years of teenagers get to experience it that way, instead of as something specifically from the past. (The sound/style of the record is maybe too sonically straightforward to date, really -- the only thing that makes it possible now is having the song become popular enough that people can associate it with things or get sick of it!)

Maybe I was just too young during whatever 80s period required "Blister" to be "redeemed," but I've never sensed that -- by 1989 it felt like it was just one of Alt/Indie Music's Greatest Hits. (Same goes for "Boys Don't Cry.")

I.e.,

1982-1990 = outsider rock commonplace
1990-2000 = that outside is part of the inside, so now it's a "novel" fun gem
2000-present = now just a basic commonplace

Song 2"...part of the back-catalogue of a band who enjoyed moderate long-term success

Ha ha, I just noticed this ....not in the States! (where I bet sports fans don't know who "Song 2" is by any more than they know who "Rock and Roll Part 2" or "Whoomp! There It Is" are by.)

The Ramones connection with the Nena isn't lyrical, it's just the chugging-along new-wavy eighth-note thing in the verses, between the vamps! Which has remained a basic rock commonplace from 1976 to the present day.

Okay, I guess I can kinda see that. It definitely has more Ramones-ish qualities than do some other songs brought up here- like "Mickey" or something...although, it seems like it would make more sense for a strawman-ish electroclash generation to be more into something like "Mickey", all things considered.

But I guess that in part explains why I still enjoy going out to see what people (invariably younger than me) will play. Towards the end of the night a couple of weeks ago a dj played the "Phone Booth" Primitive Radio Gods song, which really threw me for a loop, because I barely even remember that song from when it first came out. So, thank god for people's idiosyncratic whims, or something, I guess?

But, yeah, seeing something like "Blister", (which around the time it was released seemed like some hidden treasure to me and my friends) become elevated to the status of some late-night party anthem standard always kinda surprises me.

i left high school in spring of '87 and the femmes (that album in particular) were still a touchstone of college radio and the people who knew it. i got to college that fall and suddenly somehow everyone had the album. lots of boring drunk nights of boring drunk boys singing "why can't i get just one fuck" too loud and everyone pretending not to be embarrassed.

but nena, i dunno, at the time it felt VERY cold war. all us teen kids knew what that song was about. it wasn't any mystery. this was the same era there was that tv movie about NUCLEAR WAR and the network had a hotline to call staffed by shrinks for people who were freaked out by NUCLEAR WAR on their tv screens. don't forget the context of this stuff, it's sort of important.

But then again, I'm still scratching my head over the fetishization of the Talking Heads among the kids these days. I never would have seen that one coming. Aside from any of my personal prejudices built around that band, they always seemed so unglamorous to me, that I have trouble understanding why the younger people today have gone goo-gah over them.

cmon talking heads were great. remain in light is classic and stop making sense was the funkiest thing a lot of white suburban kids (and/or their parents) had in their cassette carry-packs.

xpost: Um, they have? I'm kind of glad I live in Buffalo now.

Sundar, are you crazy? From my understanding, and maybe this is projecting back into '06 or '05, but, for a time, my impression was that every other pitchfork/heavily blog-hyped indie rock act cited Talking Heads as a big influence, or at least their name was referenced in reviews of countless bands. I live in Philly now, and sometimes I feel like it's impossible to escape hearing "Life During Wartime" at any given bar or club.

I like at least parts of Remain in Light, but no matter how much I try, there's something about David Byrne that I find off-putting. Tom Tom Club, on the other hand, I have no problems with whatsoever.

xp It's news to me, too. Though I was surprised a couple years ago, when all the indie critics starting going crazy over a live album that nobody thought was all that big a deal when it first came out. (Maybe that's what Dell means? But beyond that, yeah, I had no idea there was a Talking Heads craze.)

an obscure band that becomes "influential" has benefited from the years, whereas a hugely popular band that winds up moderately popular has still been chipped away at

Actually, I'm a bit curious about this 'test.' At what point does a band fail it? Yes packed stadiums and got decent radio play in the 70s; they pack stadiums and get decent airplay in this decade. They are less ubiquitous and universally recognized than Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd, certainly, but does that mean they haven't stood the test of time or even that they've stood it less well? Maybe I'm just asking the same question Tom asked himself in the article now? It's late.

xposts OK, I thought you were talking about something that goes beyond an indie rock niche. I did hear "Life During Wartime" in a sandwich place at lunchtime when I was in Chicago though.

i can hear t.heads in clap yr hands, vampire weekend, maybe in beirut. i don't like those bands very much though. maybe they need adrian belew.

I've never heard any of those bands. I have heard Panic! At the Disco however.

No, but at the same time, I wouldn't be surprised to walk into a frat party and hear "Life During Wartime" sandwiched in between whatever else would get played. But that says more about the status of "indie rock" culture, whatever that means, having taken on an entire different meaning then what I associated "indie" music in general with having meant when I was college-age or whatever.

you're using frat parties as a negative barometer? the music was the only good thing about the frat parties i went to. kool moe dee back to back with inxs, young mc, the cure, def leppard, rob base. there was always one music geek in the frat in charge of the music and he was usually pretty good.

I'm trying to think of a fair analogy regarding something that I would have been shocked to hear booming outside of a frat party during my early nineties college years, but I'm coming up blank.

xpost,

Eh, yeah, admittedly I am. But none of the acts that you're mentioning seem surprising to me, given the context. Again, I'm trying to think of a proper analogy...but the Replacements or something is not really a fair comparison to Talking Heads.

But, on second thought, okay...I can't imagine hearing the Ramones at a frat party at the time. Does that make any sense?

All of the artists that you're mentioning had vast exposure on MTV in the late eighties, y'know what I mean?

Whoa. Frat parties in your town must be different from frat parties here.

Are you addressing me, or tipsy mothra?

You.

I can't comment on frat parties in the late 80s/early 90s.

fwiw i never heard talking heads at a frat party. there was one time when a church across the street from my dorm caught on fire and someone put on "burning down the house" really loud while we watched the steeple collapse.

anyway, it doesn't surprise me at all that talking heads would be reference point of some kind 20-plus years on. but, especially now, what isn't a reference point of some kind for someone? if i looked hard enough i could probably find a band on myspace or cdbaby touting huey lewis and wang chung as influences. which is fine, i like some huey lewis and wang chung songs, but i'm not sure finding a myspace page naming them would validate or invalidate the music.

Nah, don't get me wrong, I'm not decrying their influences, I think it's cool in a sense. I'm just more surprised by it, than anything else.

Tim got ahead of me by mentioning film soundtracks, both wrt triggering massive hit status in the first place and as a foundation for longevity in the popular consciousness. I was going to mention this with regard to Lovefool which was on the (massive) Romeo and Juliet soundtrack and there are dozens of other films that have had the same impact, Saturday Night Fever being probably the most obvious example.

I'm wondering if this is because the audience (and many critics) don't quite worry about whether big Hollywood films will stand the test of time. Perhaps films work so well here because the right movie (eg Saturday Night Fever again) can be perfcect for giving an idea of the musical 'test of space' to people who weren't there at the time. Or alternatively giving a record a new and potentially overriding 'test of space' dimension. Talk Show Host is almost certainly one of the five best known and most enduring Radiohead songs despite not having appeared on any of their albums, despite rarely featuring in any kind of critical debate on the band.

(Sorry it was Dell not Tim that mentioned soundtracks first - sorry Dell!)

While we sat in B&N yesterday, they played the entire Talking Heads Hits album (twice in a row!).

Also, wrt Test of Time: Isn't a part of the 'Test of Time' question one of how memorable that album will be in twenty years, versus the performative qualities of the album in twenty years? Which is to say: A single could stand the test of time because people are still dancing to it in clubs in 2020. Or it could stand the test of time because it's been canonized and recognized as an important moment in music. Sgt Peppers probably doesn't have the same performative qualities as it did when it was first released, but it stood the 'test of time' in other ways. By contrast, there are numerous uncanonized singles that still get people dancing (or listening to in the background, or burning to mixtapes for girls, etc).

Tom's column seems to suggest (vis-a-vis the MIA/Panda Bear contrast) that the Test of Time has something to do with how well the album 'holds up' as the years go by. And when you consider his 'test of space,' an album that holds up may not be a great album at all. It may be innocuous and not belong to any particular age or moment at all. My Panda Bear prejudices are well-known, but I think I can safely say that MIA seems much more of THIS moment than Panda Bear does, which might mean that when the geopolitical situation shifts (in 10-15 or 20 years), MIA will have failed to stand the test of time, but Panda Bear, which is fairly innocuous and doesn't belong to 2007 uniquely, could theoretically still be finding new audiences.

A couple of points that may or may not be worth making:

1) Since the notion of "standing the test of time" is basically a music crit notion, I don't think it's the same as music simply being remembered. The implication is that the music that has stood the test of time remembered because it remains relevant today. When people remember and refer to a one hit wonder, this in itself doesn't make the music relevant today (or demonstrate that it always was) - especially if the implication is "hey, do you remember that song from 1993, wasn't that an odd song?"

2) This, however, is not to say that any given one hit wonder is not relevant today. My attempt to schematise how rock crit discourse decides what is relevant isn't an attempt to describe what is actually going on, but rather to describe what rock crit discourse thinks is going on. 70s disco didn't need rock crit discourse to retrospectively redeem it before it could be considered relevant, but for rock crit discourse's purposes it obviously did. The test is not universal - it only means things to people who are invigilators.

the notion of "standing the test of time" is basically a music crit notion

Is it, though? More than an "'70s progressive FM radio notion" or an "aging hippie notion" or a "British blues scholar notion" or a "folk revival notion" or whatever? Seems a little odd to pin the platitude on rock critics* (even within the rock music realm; obviously, as an aesthetic of art or literature or film, it predates rock'n'roll itself.)

*(Weird, I read "music critics" as "rock critics," and took issue with the latter -- defensive much? Obviously the former category is more broad, and more old. But I still get the idea the latter is the one Tim really meant, so I don't think I was wrong.)

I presume Tim means the concept finds most use/favor among those listeners who would consider themselves active and engaged critics, rather than saying that music critics invented the concept. At least, that's what I hope he means!

xposts to matt dc -- cinema in the 1910s and 1920s was a major way that popular songs became popular, pre-mass-ownership-of-disc-players, since cinemas were, in a lot of places, the only venues for live current music.

i think the concept of 'standing the test of time' is okay as it stands in opposition to the go-go everything-now consumerist ethos. it's obviously also bad, and silly, as stuff only 'stands' if people make it so. it is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Just to compare:

The Smiths [Sire, 1984]

Morrissey's slightly skewed relationship to time and pitch codes his faint melodies at least as much as Johnny Marr's much-heralded real guitar. What's turned him into an instant cult hero, though, is his slightly unskewed relationship to transitory sex--the boy really seems to take it hard. If you'll pardon my long memory, it's the James Taylor effect all over again--hypersensitivity seen as a spiritual achievement rather than an affliction by young would-be idealists who have had it to here with the cold cruel world. B-

Can't Slow Down [Motown, 1983]

Given Richie's well-established appeal to white people, this surprisingly solid album bids fair to turn into a mini-Thriller, and good for him--it's a real advance. In the years since he became a ballad writer he's learned how to sing them--"Hello" is nowhere near as magical a song as "Easy," but the grain of Richie's delivery gives you something to sink your ears into. And where the Commodores' funk often sounded a little forced, his jumpy international dance-pop comes to him naturally even when he's putting on that stupid West Indian accent. B+

Tom's column seems to suggest (vis-a-vis the MIA/Panda Bear contrast) that the Test of Time has something to do with how well the album 'holds up' as the years go by.

This passage is tricky, though, because Tom is purposely making bad arguments (later: "But then, I like M.I.A. a lot more than I like Panda Bear. And this is what the "test of time" really boils down to-- since as analysis it's nonsense (see the last two paragraphs).") as a reminder that invoking the "test of time" is often a way out of a more immediate or relevant conversation about the value of a given artist. That's not the only usage of "test of time" (as most of this thread attests), but if you take Tom at face value in that section you get the opposite point he's trying to make.

trying to be "relevant" is just as much a trap, no?

invoking something's "relevance" to what's happening right now rests on its own assumptions about what "really matters".

Of course. I was more interested in parsing Tom's strawman tho - moreso than his eventually point (which throws the strawman away entirely).

xxxpost

And I agree that 'relevance' is a trap, but it's a different sort of trap. Ostensibly it's a trap that has more value than 'standing the test of time.' And you can make an argument for whether something is relevant (the music pushes rock's narrative forward! it's politically conscious! it reflects the debauchery of the times! etc!) while one of Tom's major issues with 'Test of Time' is that you can't make a good argument out of it.

Relevance isn't just a trap, it depends on how you use it. Talking about something that we know is more relevant than talking about an unidentified future event -- i.e., talking about what Panda Bear or M.I.A. are doing in their music now is more relevant than whether or not we're going to be listening to them ten years from now. Simply because...well, who cares? And who can say?

*not unidentified, unidentifiable. Hypothetical.

And since most casual fans, I assume, don't care all that much about genres in the first place, it seems odd to pretend that's what they'd associate them with. (I.e., somebody was singing "Lovefool" by the Cardigans on an Office episode I saw recently; I don't even know what genre that song would be apart of myself [songs one starts singing when one is drunk??], and I write about music. And that was the American version of the show, and the song's presence rang totally true; on the Brit version it would've been an entirely different song.)

romeo + juliet soundtrack!!! anyone in jr high when this dropped knows the score

I guess "this is relevant!" might be basically the now stand-in for "test of time," i.e., the sorts of ad hoc qualities we attribute to "standing the test of time" after the fact applied today and now. But that's really just using "relevant" poorly (and maybe a major argument is that "test of time," though it can mean lots of different things, tends to mean a lot of stuff that just = bad analysis).

i see matt dc beat me to it

And you can make lots of good arguments about test of time, but more often it covers up too many assumptions to be of any value. "Clearly, after reading that Marsh quote, it was the Smiths who stood the test of time" doesn't really tell us anything about the Smiths or Richie, but "even though I loved 'Penny Lover' and thought I'd be listening to it for ages, I don't think I've heard it in years and frankly don't have any desire to listen to it again, whereas I still listen to the Smiths all the time." That's a perfectly valid argument, but it doesn't present the Test of Time like it's some big deal.

Also, anyone who's ever actually sat through all of "Gone with the Wind" can join me in giving a big fuck you to the Test of Time in films. (In films I think the canonization re: "test of time" is even worse actually.)

You'd be surprised, dabug. I love Gone with the Wind and have seen it 3 or 4 times.

My favorite GWTW experience -- there's a scene where Clark Gable's character mouths off to a bunch of fellow smug white guys in a big ballroom or the equivalent, then leaves. Somehow this ended up playing on TV randomly years ago while I was over at Mackro's old place and he was playing a Neil Hamburger track while the film audio was turned down. It fit perfectly. This is the only way to see the film.

I'd never even heard this song! His shirt did not stand the test of time, but random "scene" noise interrupting a perfectly good song in a random spot in the music video has stood the test of time.

xpost: Mordy is crazy, Ned and Mackro are geniuses.

(I've only been to a handful of frat parties but the music was mainstream hip-hop or FM classic rock. One dude did take me into his room to play Dragonforce for me when he found out that I'm a music major though.)

(I'm totally able to believe that it's different in Philadelphia.)

The test-of-time approach is certainly pernicious in film; but then you get someone like Pauline Kael, who believed in great films but claimed never to watch them again! Is this a test-of-time approach?

i remember using lionel richie in an argument on ilx before about people forgetting/remembering different artists because of the effects of critics ... he's a really strong example of someone who sold gajillions of records that have not (yet) translated to an audience beyond its initial one in virtually any social milieu that ive been familiar w/, even folks normally all about smooth/contemporary 80s R&B ... but i guess just give it time?

"penny lover" is pretty good

smooth 80's R&B may be the last plot of land unclaimed by hipsters.

[sharp intake of breath]

for the moment anyway

is it just me or does "sad cafe ballads" feel like code for "totally gay"

haha - I just remembered that after writing a long appreciation of Luther Vandross a couple of years ago I got an email from a reader who castigated me for writing about someone "everyone's forgotten about."

"Penny Lover" is pretty gay, at that.

smooth 80's R&B may be the last plot of land unclaimed by hipsters

I dunno, dude. Anyone been claiming Mr. Mister lately?

you're welcome to it!

Oh no no no. I'd be more than happy to let you reclaim it.

When will all the unknown major label rock bands of the late eighties be reclaimed? The Toll? The Front?

Well keep in mind, Alfred, if there were a truly descriptive American-English dictionary out there, it would have to have sub-entries for "everyone" and "no one" that read "white people" and "no white people"

(I stiffed a waiter on a tip a few weeks ago because in addition to horrible service he said "no one really comes from D.C.")

OBAMA '08!

yeah but i hear vandross on the radio all the time, our grown folks/quiet storm R&B station here plays his stuff w/ regularity ... I didnt just mean that hipsters had abandoned lionel richie, i really dont hear most of his singles from/to any demo's at large! could be a local thing tho too

Sad Cafe's greatest hit has not stood the test of time, I don't think (though maybe it should have):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=qRwQnUzahkw

And strangely, that Lionel Richie "Penny Lover" video sort of seems to take place in a sad cafe! How weird is that?

Actually, one thing that's interesting (not sure whether anybody has pointed this out yet) is that Marsh was probably reacting against other critics who would have been really quick to argue the relevance (and therefore the potential longevity) of the Smiths as compared to the perceived ephemerality of Lionel Richie's pop hits. So, in a way, he was flipping the tables, but retaining the old rules. (And one thing that was supposed to make the Smiths relevant, btw, is that they had manly authentic rock guitars instead of all those frivolous faggy disco synthesizers all the Brit bands had been using for a couple years previous. Also, Elvis Costello liked them, just like he liked Aztec Camera. True story.)

in UK pop listening the 'this won't stand the test of time' argument seems like an outdated one to rail against

What are you talking about? The day this argument dies is the day cockroaches are the only living thing left on planet earth.

For me the biggest problem with the "test of time" thing is that history simply isn't reliable. When I watch retrospective music programmes I don't for a second get any faith that in years to come the music I like, popular or otherwise, will be accurately represented.

There's too much music for everything worthwhile to "stand the test of time".

Plus if you start to get relative about it you could say that rock/pop are only standing this test for 20/30 years, a drop in the ocean compared to say, jazz, which is just a mildly bigger drop compared to classical music.

I mean, who's to say the Beatles will last as long as Beethoven?

It's all so worthless as Tom says, just a way of making one's taste seem more than just subjective.

is it just me or does "sad cafe ballads" feel like code for "totally gay"

I'd say it's more like "totally Euro"

Haha Ronan I'm sure that the post-apocalyptic mutant roaches will sit around discussing precisely how they've, umm, stood the test of time

the test of time, an appeal to darwinian natural selection

Actually, one thing that's interesting (not sure whether anybody has pointed this out yet) is that Marsh was probably reacting against other critics who would have been really quick to argue the relevance (and therefore the potential longevity) of the Smiths as compared to the perceived ephemerality of Lionel Richie's pop hits.

Yeah, I think that's what I was getting at here, if less eloquently:

But if Marsh didn't appreciate the ephemeral in pop music wouldn't he be more likely to defend the Smiths over Lionel Richie? I think he's arguing fun music trumps sourpuss music. Longevity-wise.

-- Thus Sang Freud, Sunday, 27 January 2008 02:03 (16 hours ago)

Relevance isn't just a trap, it depends on how you use it. Talking about something that we know is more relevant than talking about an unidentified future event -- i.e., talking about what Panda Bear or M.I.A. are doing in their music now is more relevant than whether or not we're going to be listening to them ten years from now. Simply because...well, who cares? And who can say?

-- dabug, Sunday, January 27, 2008 4:53 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

because this is really about critics and their practice: if you go for "relevant", how long will the review stand up? also a question of lengths of time. "the test" of time is about long spans, decades or generations. what about the 6-9 month span? two years?

"penny lover" is pretty good

It is! I just listened to it. xhuxk OTM about the cafe thing in the video too. What's with the hairstyles/wigs of the women at the beginning? 80s videos are so bizarre.

(Honestly, I think many non-anglopihles/indie dorks in North America do see the Smiths as an 80s one-hit wonder? I'm a fan but I do think they sound pretty dated much of the time.)

"anglophiles"

What are you talking about? The day this argument dies is the day cockroaches are the only living thing left on planet earth.

I seriously do not hear this argument very much these days, in fact barely at all! Maybe that's because I'm not socialising with/reading enough diehard rockists, admittedly, so ignore that point.

'Relevance' is a bit of a can of worms isn't it? I mean its pretty much taken as given that Television and Gang of Four have stood the test of time, both were more 'relevant' in 2004 than in 1996 and I suspect both will be less relevant in 2015 even if their records are still listened to. The number of acts whose stock is permanently high is relatively low. The 'standing the test of time' argument implies a sort of resilience from the effect of shifting fashions.

Which is why the line usually seems to be trotted out for big records that are of the moment, either part of specific movements (electroclash, grime, garage, whatever) or just emblematic of a certain moment in the popular consciousness. No one says "this folk album won't stand the test of time"* and I suppose trad rock music is the new folk.

I mean its pretty much taken as given that Television and Gang of Four have stood the test of time

Stood the test of 20-30 years, I mean. Who knows if either will be remembered in 80.

I've only read the first half of this thread so far -- which took awhile! -- but I'm reminded of something mark s said about watching an old black and white movie on the VCR. His grandmother came in the room and was astonished. "But they have COLOUR movies now you know, I don't know why you're wasting your time on this!!"

I've recently found myself snapping up old Playstation 1 games that I remember loving 12 years ago (good God) but I don't think most people would do that -- NONE of these games "stand the test of time" because most people see them as obsolete, uninteresting, the same way mark s's grandma saw black and white movies.

Part of the explanation for this divide in attitude towards old stuff must have to do with our pretty recent ability to actually have so much music, virtually without limit. Everything is current blah blah beatdiggers blahbitty blah. But I have this feeling that there's a larger trend, gathering pace in the last 50 years, of, for want of a better word, nerd-dom. Sports, for instance, are no longer simply thrilling amusements, a spectator's activity which might, on a rainy day, be easily substituted with a film (which one? who cares!) Sports are now obsessed over by a much larger percentage of their fans. MVP candidates endlessly pored over and dissected, compared with each other, compared with the greats of old. I feel like this "standing the test of time" thing in music fits in with this league-ranking fan behaviour somehow, as an effort to catalogue, coordinate, keep everything in one's head, know who's up and who's down.

For whatever it's worth, here is the entire paragraph that Dave Marsh quote came from. He had just finished a couple graphs about how Americans Van Halen and Cyndi Lauper were making more exciting music than Britishers the Eurythmics; at the beginning below, he is referring to the thrill of hearing Van Halen's "Jump" (weird, since David Lee Roth was clearly an expert at striking poses!):

You don't get to such relevations by striking poses or by copping to the kind of distant emotional attitude that the Bowie-bred current crop of British singers (and their American imitators) mostly affect. Collectively, the new British invasion has produced precisely one memorable rock-or-soul-styled vocalist -- Boy George O'Dowd. Whether it has produced a single interesting lyricist is a matter of taste: Elvis Costello is more a progenitor than a participant of this style, and as for Aztec Camera's Roddy Frame, he may be the heir of Yeats, but at Chuck Berry's table, he sups not. In general, the difference between even the most middle-of-the-road British pop and the American brand is a difference in quality between singers as bad as the Smiths' Morrisey and one as great, despite the mush, as Lionel Richie. You can take all those sad cafe ballads, and I'll snatch up 'Penny Lover'. Meet you at the corner of the centuries, and we'll see what lasts."

i've always said that roddy frame's problem was that he didn't have enough chuck berry in him. (!!!!)

ah, so he wasn't talking about JUST the smiths, but the whole new wave pop scene in general. except the soul singer boy george. who was brilliant, no doubt. and i already don't hear enough culture club on the radio like i should.

kurt loder's 1984 review of smiths in rs:

"When Tom Robinson sang "Glad to Be Gay" back in 1978, he did it as a dirge - the irony, while bracing, was entirely obvious. Six years later, the singer and lyricist of the Smiths - a man called Morrissey - has little use for the ironic mode: His memories of heterosexual rejection and homosexual isolation seem too persistently painful to be dealt with obliquely. Morrissey's songs probe the daily ache of life in a gay-baiting world, but the bitterness and bewilderment he's felt will be familiar to anyone who's ever sought social connection without personal compromise. Whether recalling the confusion of early heterosexual encounters ("I'm not the man you think I am") or the sometimes heartless reality of the gay scene, Morrissey lays out his life like a shoebox full of faded snapshots.

Given Morrissey's rather somber poetic stance, The Smiths is surprisingly warm and entertaining. Though Morrissey's voice - a sometimes toneless drone that can squeal off without warning into an eerie falsetto - takes some getting used to, it soon comes to seem quite charming, set as it is amid the delicately chiming guitars of cocomposer Johnny Marr. And the eleven songs here are so rhythmically insinuating that the persistent listener is likely to find himself won over almost without warning. From "What Difference Does It Make?," a clever reprise of a venerable garage-punk riff, to the striking opener, "Reel around the Fountain," and the U.K. hits "Hand in Glove" and "This Charming Man," this record repays close listening. (RS 424)"

"And the eleven songs here are so rhythmically insinuating that the persistent listener is likely to find himself won over almost without warning."

This was very much my experience with The Smiths, except I wasn't even that persistent.

here is the entire paragraph that Dave Marsh quote came from. He had just finished a couple graphs about how Americans Van Halen and Cyndi Lauper were making more exciting music than Britishers the Eurythmics

The last chapter of Simon Reynolds' Rip It Up and Start Again to thread (resurgence of Ameri-indie, roots-rock, etc).

The Toll? The Front?

the call! who i saw open for simple minds in about 1986. what was their big hit? oh yeah. let the day begin. i remember the "walls came down" song too. have they stood the test of time? i don't know. they seem pretty hackish now and they seemed pretty hackish then. but i can go watch their videos now whenever i want. the depth of the digital archive might be making these kind of determinations beside the point. things stick around whether you want them to or not.

From my brother:

"I say "true dat"...thats why I am still rocking my Cinderfella Dana Dane cassette single from Camelot music, Foothills Mall, circa 1985. I rode my bike there. Half shirt, mullet, vans and a copenhagen "flapper" hat. I did not ride 3 miles for the cassette because I thought Cinderfella would last forever, but because it was the bomb at the time...and that shit is still slammin....... FTW"

isn't 'stands the test of time' partly a consumer-oriented kind of criticism, saying 'you will still like this in a year'?

Chuck asked:

"the notion of "standing the test of time" is basically a music crit notion"

Is it, though? More than an "'70s progressive FM radio notion" or an "aging hippie notion" or a "British blues scholar notion" or a "folk revival notion" or whatever? Seems a little odd to pin the platitude on rock critics* (even within the rock music realm; obviously, as an aesthetic of art or literature or film, it predates rock'n'roll itself.)

Well I said music crit the first time because I assumed its usage predated rock crit in music criticism, but I think you could safely say "rock crit" as a shorthand now insofar as rock crit is the only crit that currently holds itself out as the crit of and for the entire spectrum of popular music (as I said in another thread, this isn't entirely a bad thing - at least it tries).

The upshot of that is that the use of the notion is probably more subtle and insidious than it is in the discourse of genres that explicitly cast themselves as belonging to a traditional lineage as compared to pop cultural ephemerality. If someone who is only into folk or jazz (or, more specifically, folk or jazz crit discourse) is to run the "test of time" on any rock, hip hop or house record, say, it's likely that all of these are going to start at a pretty big disadvantage.

Rock crit actually has some built in positive attitude towards ephemerality (not saying other crits don't but I don't think it's worth derailing the thread to discuss the time some jazz crit said freestyle rapping was like Bird soloing) which it has to balance out against its other desire for longevity and sustained historical acclaim.

Most halfway decent rock crit doesn't start out from the perspective that all dance music or hip hop will fail the test of time - although in practice these genres might be at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to the final race.

For these purposes, the difference between a stereotypical rock critic and a stereotypical aging hippie is even larger: whereas the former is making an immanent evaluative judgment about the worth of one item of pop culture when compared against the whole field of contemporary pop culture, the "exit politics" of the aging hippie prizes those items of pop culture which she or he feels can be categorically defined as outside the field of contemporary pop culture - it stands the test of time because it's not "pop" in the strong sense. Whereas I think rock crit tries to play more of a tightrope game at this point.

I think Tom's article is interested in how the notion operates in music crit spaces where the race for the prize is theoretically wide open - the reason for choosing Panda Bear and M.I.A. is that it's not immediately obvious which enters the race with a bigger handicap from the perspective of rock crit.

What I found interesting about the article is that it consequently focuses on how the notion works among people who decide they've gotten over excessively partial or biased notions of how and why music works - they hold themselves out as being less blinkered than the hypothetical aging hippie of prog rock fm station programmer.

Camelot music, Foothills Mall

holy shit

I guess Tim's submitted, not published review is up on Pitchfork now.

I mean, who's to say the Beatles will last as long as Beethoven?

It is already evident that they will. People like me, who wasn't even born when The Beatles broke through, still buy their records. That is proof in itself.

http://www.powells.com/images/jackets_120/mccullers_sadcafe_mm120.jpg

It is already evident that they will. People like me, who wasn't even born when The Beatles broke through, still buy their records. That is proof in itself.

-- Geir Hongro, Monday, January 28, 2008 7:24 AM (4 hours ago) Bookmark Link

people like me who weren't even born when run dmc broke through still buy their records

"Every Day Hurts - now you're talking pal, that's PROPER music!"
(DLT, pp me) (xp)

Geir, stop buying Beatles records. You must have got them all by now!

Great column , made my morning. Most agreeable and enlightening piece of P-Fork writing in quite a while (nothing against Pitchfork, I just don't like things). Thanks, Tom, whoever you are.

Surprised, though, by the idea - present more in this thread than in Tom's column - that this is a mindset shared only by graybeard rockists tied to pre-download patterning. To judge by the evidence of less civilized messageboards, fans and even casual listeners go for "this is better because it will last; that is worse because it's disposable crap" all the time.

This kind of thinking is deeply programmed into us, and not only in a musical/art context. Religious folks imagine that their faith will last through the ages; political true believers that the essential rightness of their program guarantees its eventual victory.

agree with that too. people always want to assume that they are living on the edge of the future.

Yeah, and we also need to believe that we've chosen correctly, even with regard to trivial matters. Appealing to the "irrefutable" verdict of an imaginary future seems to assuage this need.

Camelot music, Foothills Mall

holy shit

-- Tracer Hand, Monday, January 28, 2008 6:45 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark Link

I know, right?

To judge by the evidence of less civilized messageboards, fans and even casual listeners go for "this is better because it will last; that is worse because it's disposable crap" all the time.

This kind of thinking is deeply programmed into us, and not only in a musical/art context. Religious folks imagine that their faith will last through the ages; political true believers that the essential rightness of their program guarantees its eventual victory.

yes, because obsviously wanting a record to hold up in a year's time is exactly like religious faith.

political true believers that the essential rightness of their program guarantees its eventual victory.

also, link? political true believers tend to have to fight for victory.

he didn't say it was "exactly" like it. x-post

Banrique is a little light on reading comprehension.

enrique what is the point of you?

memo to chuck:

"Exactly twenty years after the release of Tone-Loc's scandalous rap classic "Wild Thing" — then the fastest selling single in music history — Delicious Vinyl is proud to announce the release of a special duet version of "Wild Thing" featuring none other than pioneering electro goddess Peaches."

"Of course, that public still fondly remembers Delicious Vinyl artists whose tunes will be featured, including Young MC, The Pharcyde, Masta Ace, The Brand New Heavies, Def Jef, Born Jamericans, and Fatlip."

the public fondly remembers fatlip!

Here's a blog response:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=17013222&blogID=356605481

Sorry to be boring for my first new blog in a year and a half, but no one read(s) it anyway. Here are some thoughts on Tom Ewing's recent Poptimist column in Pitchfork. (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/feature/48148-column-poptimist-11)

Tom Ewing attacks the oft-cited "test of time" argument, though he never quite hits the fact that the argument centers on the flawed premise that longevity is, in itself, valuable. This is the "time" position's fundamental error, though to view it this way requires considerable oversimplification. While Ewing sketches out a very loose argument picking at the seams, his analysis leaves out the hidden informing principles beneath the "test of time": What matters? On what level does it matter? Does it matter personally or socially? Both? Is that possible? Is there even a distinction? Ewing instead focuses on nearly absurd possible readings of the "time" position: "You should avoid listening to music which won't stand the test of time because...what? You'll have wasted your money? Squandered your time?" Does he really believe this is what people mean when they ask what music will stand the test of time? In popular criticism, and even just music-fan-talk, I think the "test of time" is basically a shorthand for "What isn't a fix of the week? What, of this deluge of popular music, is actually good art?" The question, revealed, then, is always the Big One.

It's unlikely that Ewing wants to deny the critic (or the fan) the right to believe, hell, even to desire, that there are things more valuable, more long-lasting and substantial, than the "average" hot new release. Panda Bear v. MIA, or Battles v. LCD Soundsystem is all well and good, but how about comparisons between musicians that have no critical consensus? The major rift occurs when the audience and critic both become confused about why they like popular art. Do they like it because it's popular? Is that actually a problem? It only becomes a problem when critics like Ewing muddle up the issue of whether or not pop music "matters" or is, actually, art at all. The whole question is focused on a few basic positions: (a) the ultra-relativistic stance that it's all about whatever you like and thus art doesn't come into it, (b) it's all about art and degrees of objective value, or (c) music is sociological, cultural, inextricable from that and value/art is relative. Ewing seems to take a weird midway position between (a) and (c). He doesn't want to devalue popular music because, after all, he loves it and people should love it, but does he or doesn't he also think that there are social and market forces that shape taste? This question is the ugly ghost hiding behind the "use" argument (discussed below).

Ewing makes the aesthetic confusion worse because he says that you like what you like because it fits into your personal narrative and "structuring" your tastes according to some cloudy idea of longevity as intrinsically valuable is denying yourself your basic enjoyment of music. Ewing believes that music SHOULD be enjoyed. However, he at the same time appeals to a common sociological "use" argument. He cites Mark Sinker in saying, "…ultimately these take us back to Sinker's test of space-- what do you use the music for right now? How does it flavor your life?" The first question reaffirms that a sociological analysis is more appropriate than a historical one, while the second pulls the punch a bit by removing the analytical dimension and saying "What you like is what gives spice to your life." Is this really a revelation that effectively counters the "longevity" argument? It's probably true that most music listeners don't give a damn about "use" or, for that matter, how music "flavors" their lives. They listen to music and enjoy it, circularly, because they listen to and enjoy it. There are plenty of people who think about all this drivel, but who are the ones that need convincing? Critics always seem to come late to what the populace already knows: music can be fun and enjoyable and totally disposable. Critics confuse everything by bringing up art. To paraphrase a friend, "There has always been popular music, but only in the 20th century has it been championed as art."

So, is Ewing's article written to critics or "the populace"? His position is too undercooked to be a solid critical one, but surely he's not telling me, the average listener, I need to determine my tastes in terms of use? A CD, after all, is not a screwdriver, fork, car, dollar bill, or whatever. The "use" of music is on an organic level, in relationship to the social scenarios and practices that grew up with the music itself; in other words, it is how we listen and in what situations. And is this separate from history? Ewing says that it is by making a separation between the "time"-as-history argument and the "space"-as-sociology argument. Quote: "`How does this music fit into history?' That's not in itself a terrible question, but really it's best applied when there's a history to fit into." Is there EVER not a history to fit into? Historical analysis, even in the way Ewing suggests it works in music discourse, seems as stable as his suggested substitute. Ultimately, what's happening here is that Ewing is playing two hands at once: first, he believes that music should be enjoyed and that, essentially, is value. This is not a new position, as discussed above. But, Ewing also wants to be a critic (with a sociological bent) though it seems like he feels critics really have no function. After all, what does a critic do when you take into consideration the general current that runs through Ewing's article, namely that "being wrong about music should never matter"? My response as a listener is likely, "Thanks, Tom, for freeing me from the shackles of value – now I can listen to what I want" and, as a critic, "Thanks, Tom, for suggesting that my work is pointless."

(Not mine, obv)

This blog is set to private. This user must add
you as a friend to see his/her blog.

Roxy you have VIOLATED RIGHTS.

tl; dr

Haw.

and, as a critic, "Thanks, Tom, for suggesting that my work is pointless."

job done

I'd love to hear what this dude thinks the point of his work is, in the grand scheme of things.

I think everyone would like to think there is a point to their work, in the grand scheme of things!

I can probably speak for him here, though, considering we work together on such things. The point is an attempt to create something great!

But I guess I can take your reponse to the entire entry to be a derisive "TOO BAD"? Or...

Well, no my argument there was that creating something good is pointless. Everything is pointless, and that's not just nihilism either, just that his work is worth no more objectively than mine or Tom's or an ape with a crayon's.

Po-mo.

Everything is pointless, and that's not just nihilism either, just that his work is worth no more objectively than mine or Tom's or an ape with a crayon's.

Yes. So what? Rad is still rad.

Also, the long, impossible nothing Roxy posted might be the most simultaneously boring and WTF thing I've ever seen on ILX. Peoples brain is differnt.

Yes. So what? Rad is still rad.

So I don't see why anyone would be annoyed at Tom for saying their work was pointless.

Why, then, do critics talk about anything other than their feelings, or the factual?

(Including Tom?)

Why not!

Er, because it's all pointless bullshit (which it is anyway, but especially so if there is no such thing as good art)?

We all gotta have something to do before we die, and not everyone watches TV.

Just cos there's no scientific way of proving things are good doesn't mean you can't enjoy them, or shouldn't try.

I figured anyone writing about music had this attitude. The very profession seems to demand it.

Yeah, and it's great if that something is writing, but why does that have to be championing things as great/dismissing them as bad when this is a system you don't believe even exists?

xpost Exactly, that's why I said write that you like it, or write about the facts, not write as if you do believe there is an objective value system in music, which is what most critics still seem to do.

I'm not trying to act like a bitch up in this piece or anything, this is just something I've been wrasslin' with lately.

I read roxy's comments with some concern, as I'd been scrolling down this thread to make similar points, but reading how RoxyM puts them out I'm not so sure..

Right, back to basics

Tom says (amongst other things) that a critic who claims that he knows the future and using that claim as an authority to support his opinion is flawed.

Roxy says (amongst other things) that longevity isn't a worthwhile value anyway...

I wanted to say that longevity wasn't a worthwhile prediction, because longevity isn't actually a good quality filter anyway. It isn't an inevitable process that only the greats last.

But more than that I wanted to suggested that it was actually a bad sign of something if there is a timelessness. That I actually like music that sounds out of time, because it can evoke that other time (and that includes Bobby Vee.. ).

Doesn't it sound a bit bland to not evoke time and place? Sure in ten years time its going to sound like its, well, ten years old. That's fine surely?

Occasionally things don't age well (but that usually means you find it harder to overlook faults, not that there were no faults). Occasionally things deliberately try to evoke a different time than when it was made, (e.g The Cramps) but that's OK too.

I think I like things that haven't stood the test of time, because whatever quality it is that the test of time is testing, its not one I'm keen on, things that haven't stood the test of time should be searched for.. Lesley Gore's teen-drama are hopelessly naive and innocent... good. Orpheus and their cod orchestral psych, sounds almost laughable square and ungroovy.... great! Scars, missing the post-punk revival yet again - still one of the best things from the ealy 80s...

People want to objectivize their taste for a number of reasons. They might be saying to people "you ought to listen to this, and here's why", or they might be saying "it's okay (for me, or you the reader) to like this because it subscribes to the canonical rules" or they might be saying "my taste is better than yours and I can prove it with algebra". I suppose those are all perfectly worthwhile rhetorical approaches but they don't suit me and I find that they don't tell me anything I value about music, subjectively speaking.

Sandy's point is good, but what makes it more interesting is that we don't actually hear the 60s or the 80s, we hear something that evokes an idea for us, mediated through our minds, of what we think they might've been like. Or more probably, what we think right now about what they were like.

enrique what is the point of you?

-- Tracer Hand, Monday, January 28, 2008 6:33 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Link

ask your mum

This kind of thinking is deeply programmed into us, and not only in a musical/art context. Religious folks imagine that their faith will last through the ages; political true believers that the essential rightness of their program guarantees its eventual victory.

-- contenderizer, Monday, January 28, 2008 5:48 PM (2 weeks ago) Bookmark Link

my point is to refute stupid horseshit like this^^^

Sandy, I didn't write that piece above and it doesn't nec. reflect my opinions, but I agree with a lot of what he wrote there.

Doesn't it sound a bit bland to not evoke time and place?

Not to me. I think a lot of interesting music is interesting to me when it makes me marvel/wonder about the time it emerged from.

Exactly, that's why I said write that you like it, or write about the facts, not write as if you do believe there is an objective value system in music, which is what most critics still seem to do.

Okay, I don't want to be a dick or anything, but this kind of rigidity bothers me. Let's say we all accept that there is no really REALLY real objective value system by which things might be measured - it all boils down to likes and dislikes. Okay, but once we've accepted this premise, why not just relax and accept that the language of absolutes might have rhetorical value? When we choose our words, we're not just trying to document clearly defined realities. We're also trying to communicate subtle, sometimes all but incommunicable states and senses. We do this even in casual conversation.

So, I just don't see the point in getting hung up on what's intellectually/linguistically acceptable. When someone says something absurdly sweeping about THE TRULY TRUTH, why not just take it as a strongly-worded statement of taste, and go from there?

because "This kind of thinking is deeply programmed into us, and not only in a musical/art context. Religious folks imagine that their faith will last through the ages; political true believers that the essential rightness of their program guarantees its eventual victory."

Let's say you're talking to a friend, and you say, "It's not just that I don't like Bush - I think he's evil. Like objectively evil. Like I think he might actually be the devil."

And your friend goes, "What do you mean, 'objectively evil'? Dude, that's so stupid. Objective truth and evil are 18th century fantasies. You just mean that you REALLY don't like Bush."

And you go, "Fucking duh, Einstein."

Well, 'cause convos with pals aren't hailed as anything other than what they are? Or called "criticism"?

Most criticism isn't that important. I don't mean that as a dismissal of the value of critics, but when we're talking about which albums we like, especially when we're doing it in a "rate the new product" sense, the world doesn't hang in the balance. It's okay to overstate. It's okay to frame opinions as truths, for the sake of style.

you've completely reversed what you were saying two weeks ago.

i agree though, that it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. tom didn't seem to name names in his piece and i'm not sure where the beef is located. i have seen reviews written in a polemical 'this is great RIGHT NOW and so what if it's shit tomorrow because pop is EPHEMERAL BY NATURE and it's GREAT' steez, and it's equally grating.

Okay, but once we've accepted this premise, why not just relax and accept that the language of absolutes might have rhetorical value?

But how/why?

It's not really a linguistic problem to me. Criticism (not just "writing about music", but actual criticism) in a world where nothing has a point or any discernable value really seems completely confused to me.

Also, "not all of us watch TV" is like a total o_O, especially as so many people on this board take criticism SO seriously.

xpost Ok, I think we might actually agree, here. I just think it's just kind of a hackoff to act like if someone makes music, they might as well be shooting around in the dark, but criticism is A++++ "the canon matters"-world.

That one guy: What I was saying two weeks ago is that Tom's piece is OTM. I enjoyed reading it and learned a lot from it. And I was also speculating about why this kind of thinking persists when it's so obviously bogus.

But I never suggested that there isn't any value in the language of certainty. I believe there is, and I haven't changed what I'm saying at all. Different people, after all, find different stuff grating. A lot of my favorite music critics (Bangs, Carducci) are total, ridiculous absolutists.

I'm not sure I understand your objection, roxy. Clarify?

Just that speaking in critical absolutes that one doesn't believe in seems confused to me. I understand your point about the convo with friends/"Bush is actually the Devil = I don't like Bush"-type of language having value, but this isn't how most critics seem to write. All the polls, straight-faced absolutist reviews, etc. seem to point at some belief in objective value in what is being written about.

Is Tom's argument actually not a popular one amongst critics? Or is it just ILXors that are on its nuts? (FWIW, I liked the article, especially the last paragraph, and am not even sure what I think about objectivity as it relates to music).

I guess I don't feel the confusion you describe, Roxy. It's easy for me to say that certain things are "great" or "necessary", "wrong" or "evil" when language accurately reflects my feelings, hyperbolic as it may be. I don't feel the need to couch things in just-my-opinion-ma'am terms, 'cuz I assume that anyone with half a brain will take that as a given.

^^ "...when that language accurately reflects..."

I don't feel that need either (not a critic, though), and constant "this is just an opinion" caveats are/would be bothersome, but there's gotta be some middle ground, especially with all the hagiographing of critics peeps do in these parts.

not a critic, though

Me neither. Just a fan.

"i agree though, that it doesn't really amount to a hill of beans. tom didn't seem to name names in his piece and i'm not sure where the beef is located. i have seen reviews written in a polemical 'this is great RIGHT NOW and so what if it's shit tomorrow because pop is EPHEMERAL BY NATURE and it's GREAT' steez, and it's equally grating."

I don't tend to like pieces like this because usually the writer forgets to explain why the particular piece of ephemeral pop they're writing about is any better than any other piece of ephemeral pop. Liking something because it won't last is as meaningless and empty a position as liking something because it will last.

Also it's just not true: while it's important to realise "the test of time" is meaningless the funny thing about pop is that it actually does hang around.

I thought that this was the point of Tom's article (as against the piece roxy posted): it's wrong to simply reverse the binary opposition and say that short-termism is best. The point is that we never really know what we mean when we use short-termism and long-termism as critical barometers, and we always mean something else anyway.

What the critic usually means when praising ephemeral pop is: "I won't be listening to this tomorrow because I will have a different assignment." It's a pre-emptive manoeuvre to silence or evade future questioning of their statements. The point is "my opinion is ephemeral" rather than "this song is ephemeral."

doing formalist criticism is hard because it takes a good ear and some talent for description. doing personal criticism is hard because it takes some bravery to expose yourself and a lot of generosity and intelligence not to come off like a self-involved loser.

the 'test of time' phrase seems like a half-assed and passive aggressive way of doing both, it's like a code for "this sounds sort of like other things that have survived oblivion" and also "lots of other people are probably falling in love with it forever right this second!"

it's not really a social argument (as opposed to formal or personal) cos it's not as if critics who go on abt the 'test of time', as tom says, are promise to track the survival of a particular song, 7-up style, collating that data into the future.

GFFOTM

you might as well say "3 million people bought this album" as invoke "the test of time".

to be fair i don't see the 'test of time' argument out there too often, but tom does live in the UK so maybe it's much more common "round his end." the column does read more like a cheerful last nail in the coffin rather than opening up a big new controversy, but that's fine!

all this stuff abt nihilism and absolute values doesn't make sense to me either; criticism should a) open things up, get into the music in some sense -- any sense! -- and get people listening, and b) be enjoyable to read in its own right. some standard of correctness or the impossibility of such is both beside the point and a way bigger uh metaphysical issue than writing about music.

oh ffs I only mentioned that because the piece Roxy linked to ended with as a critic, "Thanks, Tom, for suggesting that my work is pointless."

ok!

:)

criticism should a) open things up, get into the music in some sense -- any sense! -- and get people listening

I agree with you, but this isn't really critique as much as it is education, or something else (PR?!), surely?

some critics on this very site might as well be PR reps for all the digging they do into music that isn't already getting radio/blog/tv play.

(lol)

well i guess i read 'open things up' and 'critique' as the same thing: what is this thing? what is it doing? why? who cares?

Music criticism often slides over into cheerleading, and I think that's fine. If it were all dryly objective and even-handed, it wouldn't be half so much fun.

Sure, cheerleading is good. If it's genuine and all.

But sometimes what you want to "open up" or get people listening to is a perceived shortfalling in the music - where it needs to be better, where it tries to achieve x and fails, or where it temporarily appears to achieve x but on closer listen doesn't get there, or actually does something different which is not as good.

GFF makes a good point about the way that the "test of time" mixes personal, formalist and social aspects without taking responsibility for follow-through on any of these. Again, I think one of the points of Tom's piece was more to demonstrate the incapacity and unwillingness of critics to think through a lot of their critical assumptions - not just this one - and the silly criticism that might result if they tried to.

It's typical of the arrogant naivete that characterises a lot of music writing by people who want to talk about soul, longevity, artistry - on the one hand positing some sort of ontological depth to the music (and impliedly accusing most listeners of being blind to this - the "test of time" wouldn't be a useful critical tactic if it didn't entail the failure (and therefore critical invalidity) of most current listeners) and on the other assuming that for them, the critic, the core of this ontological depth is readily empirically available. Ironically, this positing of "essence" is usually a strategic move to avoid having to be particularly articulate w/r/t "appearance" - that is, what can actually be heard in the music that might be considered evidence of its posited evidence. When cornered,people will often then turn on appearance and say it's bunk: "you may think this sounds as timeless as {insert my favourite music here} but actually it can't be because {insert fact and conjecture about the artists that has little bearing on the music being discussed}.

The nub is: listening to and talking about music is all about appearance, insofar as that all music criticism which presents itself under that banner is ultimately about sensuous enjoyment of listening to (certain pieces of) music.

At least until there is a music criticism which openly claims that listening to the music being discussed is absolutely irrelevant ("don't bother listening to this because what it sounds like doesn't matter - but you should buy it anyway because it's a great record nonetheless!").

Hey, you figured me out!

Creating Stacks of Empty CD Cases as Interior Design Solutions: A Presentation

That I would read.