Why are there far fewer advocates for popism/poptimism related to art forms OTHER than music?

thinking too much about music isn't labor, free or otherwise

it produces nothing

But I'm suprised by what I interpret as a reluctance to criticize pop ''ideology'' or what ever you want to call it. To use a somewhat exaggerated example, suggesting pop is close to politically neutral, to me, is like suggesting macdonalds are just trying to serve food, or that the fast food industry is too complex to reduce to macdonalds as an example, which, cool but this is a message BORAD not an academic paper so maybe some inaccuracy or hyperbole could be excused

― niels, Sunday, May 24, 2015 3:22 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

who is reluctant to criticize pop ideology? All I see online are (often facile but) arguments about pop's ideology & what it all means.

like, are you looking for ppl to explicitly come out against the listening of certain artists or songs? the only time I can think of that kind of advocacy happening has been w/r/t R Kelly, at least recently. and that doesn't have as much to do w/ the ideology of his music as it does supporting someone who as abusing other people in the real world

to continue this discussion i need some IRL examples cuz i don't even really understand what you're advocating...like, are you saying we shouldn't celebrate Big Sean's "IDFWU"? "Blurred Lines"? I think there are def examples of people rejecting individual songs because of the ideology they propagate but they don't become wider movements bc everyone except for extreme right christians tends to treat their relationship with pop music as a fairly negotiable set of values

Totally agree that there's plenty of criticism regarding ideas expressed by specific songs/artists/genres. I'm looking for a critique of pop for being capitalist or a critique of popism for ignoring capitalist aspects of pop. I can see how that maybe sounds totally crazy since popism can maybe in part be conceived as a reaction against only understanding pop as capitalist product/propaganda. I guess I feel like the current engagement with pop lacks balance, and I understand this is not an uncommon suggestion. I don't mean this to sound wrong, but maybe it also has to do with my Danish perspective: in Denmark it's not very common to celebrate wealth and success, and pop/popism does this a lot.

btw I also feel weird about for instance Bob Dylan being a very very rich blues/folk/singersongwriter, but maybe because his wealth is celebrated less and not so visible it's easier to ignore

thinking about the celebration of wealth and success within African-American art, religion, life generally, would be helpful for you, I think. I don't know what to point you to read on this, though.

I tried to get my head around the idea that e.g. Brian Ferneyhough is in fact exploiting the proletariat by by writing difficult complex music. Then I decided to revolt against the unpaid labour of thinking about it.

kickstarter to fund Sund4r's thinking on this important question!

I think the pseudo-intellectual jerking off over Mad Max proves that this is not true btw

pseudo intellectuals jerk off over everything I'm not sure the topic matters

i mean, i don't think 15 years ago the movie-review landscape would have been so unabashedly "YOU GOTTA SEE THE NEW 3-D CAR CRASH REMAKE OF A FRANCHISE FROM YOUR CHILDHOOD"

i guess the only way you could be more "film poptimist" is stanning for Pitch Perfect 2

And I think the whole "TV is the new film" attitude is basically a poptimist rescuing an entire format once referred to as "the idiot box" and reserved for killing hours before you fall asleep. See the increase in the auteur theory (ie., saying "showrunner" instead of the less-sexy "executive producer").

what did you think about mad max whiney

mainstream movie critics has always been populist/poptimist - the shitty local critic who ends with "FUN!" for every review of a summer blockbuster and with the snobs it sorta happened already with the future French new wave guys when writing and loving mainstream American filmmakers like Hitchcock and Preminger and it's never really left -- annoying aspect is that they can act self-righteous about loving popular movies now too.

whiney ffs

Whiney otm about marketing of TV. I think TV is much better than it used to be but also think long-form serialization is mainly a crass capitalist move more than an artistic one.

I think w the rise of Facebook and Myspace and social networks where most of your profile is made of products you consume has lead to an era where consumers are more vigilant than ever about being better at consuming than their peers.

Mainstream film critics might be populist but they all hate Adam Sandler and don't his movies still make tons of money? Also Paul Blart, etc.

trenchant thread

Mainstream film critics might be populist but they all hate Adam Sandler and don't his movies still make tons of money? Also Paul Blart, etc.

But do poptimist music critics love e.g. Nickelback?

But do poptimist music critics love e.g. Nickelback?

No, because poptimist criticism defines pop aesthetically (music by black people, mostly, that you can dance to, mostly) rather than by the numbers (music that's popular = pop). Thus a rock band (e.g. Five Finger Death Punch or Theory of a Deadman) can have multiple high-selling albums out, with songs that get played all day long on rock radio formats, and never draw the attention of critics, because a) there's no big rock radio station in New York, and b) a lot of music criticism these days is about preening for other critics (cf. the annual EMP Pop Conference, which I have presented papers at twice), and if a band is just four white guys with electric guitars, there's no intra-group status to be gained by, and therefore no value in, analyzing their work.

mj eddie vedder eating popcorn.gif

No, because poptimist criticism defines pop aesthetically (music by black people, mostly, that you can dance to, mostly) rather than by the numbers (music that's popular = pop)

This entire post is so wrongheaded that I had to just check to see if you were Raccoon Tanuki.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oBTzbKx0jo

^curvy Columbia dive

when poptimists stare into the void, Nickelback stares back at them and smirks.

I don't know everything all ya'll are talking about, but it might also be fruitful to talk about how the music is used?

Everyone already knows that when you give someone a dime for something that costs five cents, you're going to get a Nickelback.

See the increase in the auteur theory (ie., saying "showrunner" instead of the less-sexy "executive producer").

These two titles are very far from interchangeable and while the former might usually be the latter as well, they're not the same job

Art historian here. Visual art had its "popism" moment in the nineteenth century, with the advent of photography. Critics argued over whether these machine-produced images could be "art". Ditto the value of mass-produced images such as book and magazine illustration. Would be worth reading the anti-photography essays published at the time - these would be the "rockists" - no?

Photography's influence on painting is a fascinating topic.

Also you misunderstand me, and also take my earlier post too seriously. I DO think that rockist critics who demand that hard-working people listen to their twenty-five essential rock albums are being classist. I don't have time in my stressful working life to listen to boring depressing shit like Astral Weeks. A liberal music writer ought to understand labor and economics better. NOT that Van Morrison exploits workers, but I think critics do. Or at least lack sympathy for them.

the working class find it very hard to avoid rockist music critics

From the boss' kids'Mecca that is ILX. I come from three generations of steelworkers AND attended an elite university. I know both sides.

Rock music is working-class AND black in origin, it is amazing how many white male critics and editors pay no mind to this, nor are they grateful to the originators of a music that they STOLE. I don't like some privileged ass telling me that I'm not musically literate enough because I didn't like his pet rock albums. Ditto for rich old white guys who sneer at blue-collar students who haven't read all of the "great books".

The working-class has every right to read bullshit criticism produced by the bosses' class. Don't think they don't. Esp. when critics pretend to be "liberal".

Jesus be quiet

critics exploiting workers, what is the world coming to

There is something suspect about all these critics who put all these long movies like the Godfather on "Top Ten" lists when they could be recommending Youtube clips or 30 second ads to the overworked masses

xxp
it must have been pretty shit for that first generation of your steelworker heritage, waiting for the Bessemer process to be invented and just making horseshoes and stuff in aid of sending a future progeny to an elite university centuries later:p

astral weeks is a dope album fuiud

would rock critics still be rockist/classist/racist if they recommended "are you experienced?" to their working class readers instead of "astral weeks"?!?

i guess the only way you could be more "film poptimist" is stanning for Pitch Perfect 2

That would indeed be much more "film poptimist," in that one notable feature of poptimism is "what if we accorded mass media whose primary audience is women something like the same benefit of the doubt we do mass media whose primary audience is men."

I tried to get my head around the idea that e.g. Brian Ferneyhough is in fact exploiting the proletariat by by writing difficult complex music. Then I decided to revolt against the unpaid labour of thinking about it.

― EveningStar (Sund4r), Monday, May 25, 2015 4:43 PM (1 month ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

This is similar to what Cornelius Cardew argued in Stockhausen Serves Imperialism (1974), isn't it?

i posted some stuff about popism and capitalism earlier on this thread, in a piece on gawker linked on taylor thread similar ideas are expressed, a decent read apart from the somewhat polemical tone:

... the part of Taylor’s persona that doesn’t get talked about enough: she is a ruthless, publicly capitalist pop star. To think of her as womanhood incarnate is to trick oneself into forgetting about “Bad Blood” and “Better Than Revenge.” Swift isn’t here to help women—she’s here to make bank. Seeing her on stage cavorting with World Cup winners and supermodels was not a win for feminism, but a win for Taylor Swift. Her plan—to be as famous and as rich as she can possibly be—is working, and by using other women as tools of her self-promotion, she is distilling feminism for her own benefit.
http://gawker.com/taylor-swift-is-not-your-friend-1717745581

how is feminism the way this writer defines it possible in a society that's not capitalist?

Are you referring to this paragraph?

I often have conversations with my female friends about the two sides of feminism: the complimentary, bestie feminism—the kind that Swift is currently selling—and the cutthroat, realistic, we-exist-in-this-male-world-too feminism, the kind that expects women to act to standards that have already been set for us, and to do so by acting better and stronger and in alignment with each other. I think that neither are necessarily “wrong,” though I do often find myself on the latter side of the fence.

If so, it's pretty late in Denmark and I'm not clearheaded enough to understand what it's supposed to mean. But I thought the point about Taylor's capitalist values was relevant (although I'm sort of feeling that maybe other people itt will find it too self-evident to be mentioned).

Maybe both sides are just different points of view seen through this critical lens that is being reduced into yet another cultural football team.

Is a non-capitalist pop star possible?

I thought popular music depended on the existence of capital.

Just thinkin' aloud here.

Taylor Swift Burn a Million Quid

cultural football team hehe

Were there stars in communist Russia? Jurij Gagarin? Anyway, I agree, in a capitalist society it's hard to imagine pop being in opposition to capitalism. But maybe some pop embraces capitalism more than other - or maybe Pitbull (my go to reference, but really, the guy had a sponsorship deal with Kodak where he would say the word "Kodak" in his songs) is no more capitalist than the Beatles were, he's just up front about it?

I'm pretty much repeating myself here - but I thought it was nice to see an article/thinkpiece that pointed out however obvious, that there's some tension between the down-to-earth-friend and larger-than-life-business Taylor Swift.

flappy bird heroically stanning for the angry birds movie reminded me of this thread

Feel like a lot of people used to be into way more interesting stuff.

they were also shorter and lived near the water

I'm picturing intelligent people looking in the mirror and crying after a long degrading day of writing and arguing about mediocre pop film and tv.