Not all messages are displayed:
show all messages (35 of them)
- with apologies for those expecting to read something on-topic -
Scott - yeah "crusade" is the wrong word. I think why I take issue
with Nitsuh's idea repeatedly is not that it's a bad idea or a poor
reading of the current situation - in fact I'm really interested in it -
but just that I'd like to be convinced of it. It just seems to me to be
par for the course rather than something new for relatively
stripped down rock bands to be championed by the press (a
press, I might add, who have been increasingly incorrect in their
predictions). You're right, it's no coincidence, because it's part of
an ongoing discourse that takes in neo-glam, new wave of new
wave, britpop, lo-fi, instrumental post rock, B&S-style indie,
slowcore, emo (and as such is no more unexpected than
Mixmag hyping Daft Punk). One interesting aspect of the whole
Strokes bonanza is that in retrospect it was so obvious and
inevitable: the media have been waiting for such a pop-friendly
Velvets-inspired group for ages (since the late eighties?) and
would have made a fuss about them at any time during the
nineties, presumed higher journalistic standards
notwithstanding.
In terms of future movement, well, yes, a tidal move towards
those values Nitsuh mentions is inevitable, but by the time it
emerges I think it's unlikely that The Strokes or Life Without
Buildings or Starsailor will have anything beyond a tangential
connection to it. I feel a lot more comfortable since Nitsuh
re-emphasised (and maybe i just missed it before) that the
leaders of such a movement would have to be offering
*something* new.
― Tim, Wednesday, 3 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Problems with Ewing's theory.
1. Trivially - he has not explained terms. 'ProTool' = ?
2. He seems to be talking about a choice between perfection and
deliberate mistakes. This is a non-choice, a red herring. It is very
difficult - no, impossible - for me to play anything perfectly (so
that's out); and so I am hardly going to worry about making deliberate
mistakes (so that's out). What happened to playing as well as you can
(which != perfection)?
3. He ignores the most important aspect of pop music, namely:
Songwriting. Can a song be perfect, or imperfect? Maybe we use this
language sometimes - 'My Funny Valentine is the perfect love song', or
whatever. But that's loose talk - I think that really we don't think
of songs in that way. We try to write good songs, or better songs, or
the best songs we can manage. So again his dichotomy does not arise.
Ewing's thinking seems to revolve around an idea that C21 pop =
computer noises. Probably with someone singing horrible 'soul music'
inflections over the top.
I think this is like saying that C21 politics = G.W. Bush. Yes, he's
dominant and can do what he likes and the media will follow what he
says and does. That doesn't mean we have to accept him, or like him,
or that we shouldn't hope for or believe in alternatives.
― the pinefox, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
I see glitch and "protools"-pop as being synthetical rather than
antithetical, and not just because glitch is increasingly sculpted
and tailor-made. Surely shiny pop has been incorporating
allusions of mistakes for ages - most obvious example might be
the deliberate computerised muck-ups of the vocals in "Believe".
I reckon this tendency will grow as artists and producers have to
cast further afield for inventive sounds.
Beginnings of a theory - Glitch is to IDM what acid house was to
house: at once the establishment of a sub-genre around a
machine "mistake" (only this time on a digital rather than
analogue level) and a sound that can be positively identified and
automatically associated with the genre from which it springs. As
with the 303 sound, I imagine the glitch will become increasingly
normalised, both musically and conceptually, potentially
becoming merely another component in a lot of pop and
mainstream dance.
― Tim, Thursday, 4 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link