We Hate Music

I think there are no more people who dislike the Beatles here than any other band, it's just they're not talked about that much because - I'd guess - there's not much new to say about them.

I would like them to be talked about more actually because I think some fresh perspectives would be nice and the people on ILM could provide that if anyone could. A lot of writing about them - the huge body of pro-Beatles opinion and the smaller corpus of anti-Beatles both - is flabby and lazy and seems to say nothing about what listening to Beatles records is ACTUALLY LIKE for the writers, but a great deal about how good and important (or bad and overrated) the band are. The irony of the Beatles is that listening to the records disappears from the discourse a bit.

Gareth, the error in your statement is 'defending in a constructive way', since 'constructive' is a personal heading for many, it is wrong. Defending your favourite bands is an option on ILM but seems to end up in gruesome virtual deaths.

I don't like gorillaz, Damon's post modern art gags are beginning to bore me.

The Google directory lists 702 Beatles fan sites and 3 anti-Beatles sites. People who decry all the so-called 'negativity' on here seem to irrationally fear that their cherished bands will be outlawed and nobody will be able to buy their CDs anymore because of a few snide comments.

We have never had a "Beatles: Classic Or Dud" thread, amusingly enough. Not that I'm saying we should, O invisible army of Tom- worshippers.

I've never understood the vitriol directed at David Grey, actually. A lot of his stuff sounds to me like the types of things that Sting would be doing if he didn't have a king-sized stick shoved up his tantric ass. It's pleasant adult-contemporary stuff with slight techno leanings and, while I've only heard a couple of songs, I 've enjoyed them both a lot.

The problem I have with Gorillaz is that the original version of "Clint Eastwood" is so off-putting to me that I would never buy their album. There are some remixes that boost the tempo out of the lumbering rut that mires the song, as well as playing tricks with Damon's vocals to make themm palatable, but the original song is aggravatingly horrible. It's kind of like the Coldplay Effect; their first single was loathsome and horrid to the point where I would never spend any money on them, despite liking some of the other songs I heard from their album.

It's the curse of the lowest common denominator.

Misspelled Fauna Taking Sides: Gorillaz vs Beatles

Yo, Gareth, what you be on about, foo?

But isn't that what ILM is about? How music touches all of us personally? Fine, you can argue that there's nothing new to be added to the praising of the Beatles, but that's hardly the intention, right? Isn't this the place for people to share their feelings about music? I wanna see people say how much Abbey Road touches them, what the White Album conjures up for them, or why 'Across the Universe' is their favorite song? Hey, and along the way, I'm sure some of us will learn tidbits, B-sides, or songs/albums we overlook because we didn't think they'd be good.

Mark S -I'M Mr.Mojo (ageing punk flavour of course).

OK, i like "Here There And Everywhere" because it sums up what being in Love is actually like (well, for me anyway) AND it's a beautiful tune AND my inner geek likes the way the lyrics move through the title.

But i HATE Stereolab like POISON. They are shit, people who like them are shit, radio stations that play them (MERCIFULLY FEW nowadays) are shit, the whole shit retro-future shit idea is shit, records next to them in record shops smell of shit, and to reiterate, they are shit. Even their shit stereo-brothers the stereophonics are not as shit as Stereolab, who obviously are REALLY shit. I HATE THEM.

What?

You don't like Stereolab? Come around to mine and I'll put on Dots and Loops and change your mind. ; - o

dots and loops is what put me off stereolab. it's cold, bland and boring, like a bowl of mashed potatoes left out in the snow.

Yes, it was me who suggested that it would be a good rule to stay out of discussions of things you hate. It's by no means impossible to participate meaningfully in a discussion of something you hate, but here it seems to me to almost always come off as juvenile approval- seeking, which drags the overall level of discussion down quickly. I haven't been reading very long, but I've already been accused of having inherently bad taste because I like some specific artist three times. That's ludicrous and immature, and makes the name "I Love Music" seem like a cynical joke.

glenn, you accuse others of having too much juvenile negativity, but that's just what ur complaining comes off as. as i said before, it is not ur forum so why do u expect it to conform to ur standards of discussion/debate?

also, u have yet to post something that isn't a criticism of the board or other posters. what do u expect?

I think there's four levels (this is just self-parody now) of 'music hatred'. From what is generally thought 'best practise' critically to worst, and apologies to Glenn for the example but his post brought the thought on.

i. Explanation: 'Roxette sucks because [insert reason here be it good or bad]' ii. Assertion: 'Roxette sucks.' iii. Implication: 'Roxette sucks and the people who like them are idiots.' iv. Abuse: 'Roxette sucks and you, Glenn, are an idiot.'

There is more of type i on ILM than some people seem to think - but there is also quite a lot of type iii.

Glenn: I disagree with you to a certain degree. Some of us come here to seek out new bands to check out. If every thread contained endless praise for every artist, then how's that gonna help us? Sure, a one-liner saying "it sucks" doesn't help anyone, but a good negative criticism balances things out.

It's worth saying that when I went into hyper-tease mode at Glenn on POP IS DEAD, I felt I wuz reacting to what I took to be iii/iv material masquerading as i. Possibly I was overreacting in that case, but I still insist — as stated in other language upthread — that attempts to narrow the range of styles of expression are (very often) iv. masquerading as as iii. masquerading as i.

But Tom, why do things need to be phrased as any form of "x sucks"? "Roxette sucks because [insert reason here]" is wrong, no matter what reason you insert. What you (or whoever) really mean is "I don't like Roxette because [insert reason here]". Saying Roxette sucks, instead, is effectively adding an "and you are foolish to disagree with me" at the end, which is unfriendly, unhelpful and inane.

unfriendly, unhelpful and inane.

...and u r foolish to disagree with me. isn't that basically what u r saying here? a bit hypocritical i think.

OK, rephrase "Roxette sucks" with "I don't like Roxette" in my taxonomy, then. That's basically just a matter of etiquette - I have no problem with the knockabout formulation 'sucks' but best not to use it if you're talking with people who do.

"rephrase" = "replace"

what junichiro sed: "which is unfriendly, unhelpful and inane" is identical as a formulation to "it sucks"

[I just realised that " this suXoR" pretty much = "this sucks :)": ie removes a. constant requirement for first person singular. b. it's quicker so does not (rudely?) try the (im?)patience of many readers...

Also it's silly and funny: so makes urgent and key — if compacted and thus potentially misunderstrod — aesthetic-social statement impossible in the careful round-the-Wrekin version....

Some of the best rock writing ever has been total frothing DESTRUCTION of sacred cows/abs/acts, and would hate to be deprived of it - 'cos it can be fun and funny. I love reading Chuck Eddy, even though he's horribly mean to Sonic Youth and all the other artwank I like - it's good to have yr tastes challenged by somebody who can do it with wit and a well-turned phrase. And If ILM is, in part, meant to represent 'the chatter of pop', who can honestly say that they've never slagged off certain groups when talking/arguing with friends.

What Andrew L said. Bring on the hate. I'm sorry, Glenn, but you haven't convinced me -- at *all* -- that your general point has any validity, though Tom rightly notes the problem of hate taken too far and leading to ad hominem attacks. One can think that somebody is a Good and Fine Person and still disagree with them violently, no, viscerally over music. I think being able to express that is as worthy an approach as praise. I don't hate *you* in the slightest, Glenn, for liking Alanis and saying so, but I'll be damned if I will refuse to say that I find her work to be utter smug tripe served over underdone toast. ;-)

'Bring on the hate'

Hate will eventually end all discussion, except for disgruntled moaners (as it is happening with ILM at the moment). Who would want to participate in a conversation which is deliberately trying to be negative/mean-spirited/not very fun?

Hating things irrationally or rationally is great fun. My problem is that I'm quite likely to change my mind. And then what?

You know, given enough stubborness and vitriol, you can add "...and you're a fool for thinking otherwise" to ANY arguement being made, regardless of its intelligence & considered phrasing. It's tough to take in attacks on something you enjoy impartially - when it happens to me, I just WANT to counter with more considered analysis, more factual evidence, and so on. However, unless the other person's willing to meet you halfway and have a discussion (instead of an arguement), it's a lost cause.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are folks trolling around these parts, looking to pick fights and start trouble. But that's going to happen in any large gathering of people (regardless of whether they're hand-picked by a select few, or invited in regardless of criteria). The best way to counteract this negativity, instead of butting heads with it, is to soldier on, and state your case, regardless of the odds or opposition. It's too easy to just take your ball and go home, especially when there's more going on than what's superficially visible.

But, then, isn't that the problem in a nutshell (concerning this thread, and other issues raised as a result of this discussion)? People just don't have the time to consider EVERYTHING; they cut corners. Instead of giving, say, trance or 2-step a good chance, they decide to ignore it after hearing one bad example. Instead of stating their reasons for not liking trance, they say "It sucks." Instead of defending their accusition, they ignore the call-to-arms and do something else. Or maybe it's the image, or some poorly- worded hype, or too much hype, or hearing a song on a bad day after getting fired, or associations with this horrible person you once knew. The reasons are endless.

You can try to rise above it all, but that's often not possible. And I'm not sure it's necessarily bad, as long as one is willing to keep an open mind when the reason for one's disinterest is ignorance.

You know, I get the feeling that all band-hatred or scene-hatred is, in the end, an attempt to profess liking for something else. I.e., hating all that borders on "twee" is really just a way of saying "The music I enjoy is powerful and deep"; hating dance music is really just a way of saying "The music I enjoy is not trendy or futuristic but timeless and pure"; etc. We vocally obnoxiously "hate" things only when that hatred seems to point toward something we don't hate, which goes a long way toward explaining why no one hates on Public Enemy. Because what would that imply?

Thus hating overexposed bands is a way of saying "I am not a child who gets carried away over the Next Big Thing because the music I love is Important and Meaningful regardless of press involvement." Which is the easiest hating of all, particularly as the opposition is lined up right there for you.

I'm not being hypocritical, I'm talking about a different subject. "Roxette sucks" is poor language use, mistaking the listener's subjective reaction for a property of the music itself. "'Roxette sucks' is poor language use" is, as best I can tell, a correct statement on "objective" grounds, or at least an attempt at one.

Also, "unfriendly, unhelpful and inane" are all negative, but they are meaningful words I used in an attempt to explain the negative effects of substituting "it sucks" for "I don't like it" on a conversation, which I don't think can be written off as a matter of etiquette, at least not in a public forum. To clarify them, although I think they're pretty simple:

Unfriendly: "Roxette sucks" insults both Roxette and anybody who likes them. "I don't like Roxette" does neither.

Unhelpful: Writing "Roxette sucks" instead of "I don't like Roxette" adds nothing to the discussion about Roxette. All it does is raise the tension level of the conversation, which thus further reduces the likelihood that helpful information will be revealed (where by "helpful" I mean "likely to assist the non-Roxette-cognizant reader in guessing whether they would like or dislike Roxette").

Inane: Writing "Roxette sucks" instead of "I don't like Roxette" lowers the level of sense in the conversation without adding anything to compensate, and the time saved in typing a few fewer letters is negligible, so I don't see any point to doing so.

But flip it around: is there any way I'm missing in which "Roxette sucks" is a better or more anything contribution to a public online discussion of Roxette than "I don't like Roxette"?

As for "refusing to say" things you believe, isn't voluntary self- censorship for the public good pretty much the fundamental key to civil discourse?

Wait: so I guess what I'm saying above is that "hating" particular things is a way of jumping on the bandwagon of what we don't hate. Like, if you're just trying to establish yourself as a big lover of art-wank, it's imperative that you dis average indie bands in order to firm up your art-wank status. And once you're confident in that art-wank status, you reinforce your cred over the new art- wankers by professing to love certain average indie bands, in a critical "they're quite good, really" kind of way. We perform the hatred only to build up our images of what we'd like to be.

Music geek reserve their strongest contempt for bands that too closely resemble their favorites. Close enough to satisfy a casual fan, but tellingly off to a hardcore obsessive: "Travis sux, man! How can you even suggest they sound like Radiohead?" It's like a group defense against fraudulent intruders - or bordering tribes. (Much safer to speak up for acts obviously aimed at some distant tribe. Saying you like N'Sync won't lay you open to a charge of misreading the codebook.) A lot of ILM threads center around such fine distinctions, with much forehead-vein-popping rage over anything just barely off the mark.

I think we could develop a sort of "sociology of musical opinions" based on this, with a whole lot of cognitive and performance theory thrown in: we essentially "perform" our likes or dislikes in order to construct our own personalities.

So, basically, what you're saying is that people around here are too stupid and idiotic to understand that "sucks" is basically equal to "dislike"? This isn't the 1950s, it's a commonly used term that everyone understands the meaning of. Your post is, basically, nitpicking and whinging over a nonexistant issue. Yes, saying, "So and so sucks" is flippant and not as proper-tea as saying "I highly dislike so and so", but if the reasons are still there and people can still discuss it, what is the difference? Quite frankly, I think saying "sucks" is a bad word SUCKS. Flippancy and all that...

I think the real problem with ILM is, basically, not people hating or liking anything irrationally. It is, to me, about people who are toeing some sort of company line to the point where someone who dislikes XYZ band that has been annointed by the FT staff gets told, basically, to fuck off. Not by the Toms of the world, no, but there is definitely a contingent on this board who do that.

It's not fun anymore. It'd be more fun if everyone was hating things irrationally.

(I see what you're saying Ally - but the FT Staff to be exact consists of two people. And in partyline terms, try asking me what I think of Tool or Ned what he thinks of Belle and Sebastian.)

Nitsuh's and Curt's replies: very very interesting.

I'm saying that "it sucks" and "I don't like it" are different, so I can hardly be implying that people are too stupid to understand that they're the same. If you don't care about the difference, fine. I'm saying that for me it impairs discussion. If nobody agrees with me, I'll leave and you can keep happily discussing which things suck and which don't. But at least a few people seem concerned about the tone of discussions here (thus this thread), so I'm trying to offer a theory about what's affecting it.

I agree with Nitsuh that a lot of professed hatred is an attempt to establish some other kind of identity or credibility by opposition. This is what I meant by "approval-seeking", and it's at odds with the idea of rational discussion. So what is ILM for, rational discussion or irrational chatter? You can say "both", at the forum level, but they don't mix well in the same thread...

It's tough for me to like Beck, even when he's fun. The main thing I hate about Beck qua critical figure is that he's is lauded as a "pioneer" by those with an embarrassing lack of commitment to those musics that he's (to be kind) referencing. The main thing I hate about Beck qua artist is that he mars many songs with overly self-conscious grotesquery, as if he didn't have the guts to be straightforward or provide the listener with the illusion of emotional engagement. Mind you, I don't demand either musical trait from him or anyone else, God knows, but I immediately get suspicious when feels the need to run away from them so self-reflexively. (I don't think Beck is smart enough to do some kinda Brechtian distancing thing, either.)

Let me go on record as saying that I like everything I've heard by David Gray - which is only "Babylon," pretty much. Its prettiness and delicacy renders Gray's troubadour overwroughtness temporarily irrelevant. No, actually…the main reason I like "Babylon" is that I live there, or near there, anyway.

The song Macy Gray song she did with Fatboy Slim, especially in its restatement by the Stanton Warriors, kicks ass and kicks ass because of her singing and the way she hammers out her syllables. (They SAY he SHOOK. HIMSELF. TO DEATH.)

The British dad-rock brigade is marginally more entertaining than, say, the Dave Matthews Band or Train, but what a bunch of weak tea that statement is, eh?

I think the Beatles are the best band, ever, but I swear, I have no interesting take on them at all.

As for the charge that ILM/ILE revels in the glorification-of-stupid, I honestly can think of more counter-examples than examples.

I think Tom severely underrates his charisma (seriously) but to say that he dictates the ILM/ILE mindset is like saying that TV promotes the mindless worship of capitalist values. It's true, no doubt, but conveniently ignores the other half of the equation: people who worship capitalist values tend to be attracted to TV. In other words, ILM/ILE is the way is not only because the people who particpate don't like dad-rock or Macy Gray, but also because the people who do like dad-rock and Macy Gray don't participate, for whatever reason. For many reasons. It's a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

Gareth - if you've spent more than five minutes at a Gap clothing store during the mid-nineties, you've heard acid jazz.

What we need is a REAL obverse (inverse?) of "I Hate Music": someone, or some group of people who will play devil's advocate about any piece of music without resorting to cliché.

I just want to say that I pretty much agree with Tom. About everything ;-).

This sort of discussion seems to be cropping up all over the place lately. I tend to subconciously translate any "[X] Sucks" statement into "I don't like [X]". They mean the same thing to me (maybe this was covered somewhere in the objective vs. subjective thread) but I agree that one is more likely to facilliate discussion and lead to something I would find useful.

I think seriousness and levity mix very well in the same thread. It's good that people are prepared to take the mickey out of overblown chat (inc. and possibly esp. when it's me doing the overblowing).

On this board, we're talking about music and none of it is important enough to justify anyone saying "Stop beeing foolish! This is serious!"

i don't think most people do make a distinction between "x sucks" and "i don't like x" because in the common slang/vernacular they have the same meaning. if someone says "will oldham sucks" i think they dislike his music - i don't think "oh no he hates will oldham and thinks i'm stupid for liking him!". i think it reads way too much into the meaning of the word to think it of it that way. i think most people here are familiar with the everyday usage of words and don't see it as a personal attack or a closure on discussion on the subject.

I can think quite the same thing but sometimes it becomes too much. When Fred started to get on my nerves because I thought he was hating too much on some music I liked, I told him so. It wasn't simply a matter of translating it mentally, telling myself, this means Fred doesn't like this band. I took it personally.

Is the only reason no one is objecting to this same kind of talk, in a positive sense (Macy Gray is the greatest singer ever, etc.), that people's feelings don't get hurt? And if we should avoid X-is-bad talk because it translates a subjective dislike into a pseudo-objective assessment, then why is it that some such statements ("manufactured pop music is bad") are more acceptable - is it solely on the strength of the arguments backing up such statements? If so it seems to me to be only a matter of degree, and not a very big one. (I guess what I'm groping at here is that I'm not very happy with this talk about bad pseudoobjective judgments, while 'good' ones are apparently ok, aside from the obvious benefit that they can be less hurtful.)

The new Tool album sucks way worse than Roxette.

Well, I'd be the last person to claim that any music sucks, but Tom, I just don't see the problem here. I think you're overworking your conscience. ILM is so good-natured, and most people are so willing to rethink their own positions and give the time of day to other people's, that the occasional strong statement gets absorbed into the general milk-and-cookiesness of the whole thing. I wish there were more strong statements; it would make this forum smarter, and there are enough people hanging around to prevent things from getting out of hand. As for Glenn, he's being aggressively sincere while seething underneath, and I don't buy his act.

Rather stupidly I asked the qn in a forum context and so it turned into another internal ILM politics thread. I meant it in an off-forum context too, so here it is again:

But should we try not to [hate music], and if we do try not to, does this squashing of whatever impulse led us to hate the bands in the first place make us better listeners/critics?

And from my personal point of view the answer to that last bit is "no".

A choice, meanwhile, between rational argument and irrational chatter is no choice at all.

I think many (maybe even most) occasions of "[ ] sucks" can't be analyzed into either into statements with subjective or objective implications. You could argue that in most cases, "[ ] sucks" more closely resembles an interjection like "Fuck!" or "Ow!" or "Grrr!" than "It is my opinion that Roxette sucks" or "It is an indisputable fact that Roxette sucks."

The main criticism I tend to hear about "[ ] sucks" is that it's sexist and homophobic: the phrase supposedly implies that people who take the passive role in oral sex are degraded, decadent, slutty, unmanly, whatever.

While the promiscuous use of the phrase will lower the tone of a discussion, I reserve the right to keep as part of my palette of critical responses. I like keeping my options open.

Josh, "x is great" is no more meaningful than "x sucks", I agree. It usually, in my experience, causes less damage to discussions than the reverse, but certainly in theory it could carry the same implied judgments. I left it out of my proposed rule of conduct only in the interest of keeping the stricture as minimal and practical as possible.

Part of the reason I would like to maintain the subjective/objective distinction as clearly as possible is that I do believe it is possible to have some objective discussions about music (i.e., discussions that are not about personal tastes). Part of the discussion of manufactured pop, for example, turned on the question of whether that manufacture undermines the communicative nature of art, and if so what effect that has on its audience. Those are largely objective questions, and although I don't think we resolved them, it's conceivable that they could be resolved. We might end up collectively convinced that NSync's music is ultimately "bad" in some socially-destructive sense, even though some of us still like it, viscerally. Or that some of us hate listening to it, but it's actually a powerful force for positive social change in some unexpected way. These are objective subjects, whether we can make coherent sense of them in the end or not (and whether you care about them or not). Likewise the long-running argument about whether pornography breeds violence towards women, which isn't about whether you, as an individual, like Penthouse.

We must be tolerant of all style s of music criticism. NO on e has the right to dictate the tone of another writer when they are talking about their own feelings toward music. I love stereolab but I dont get mad or hurt when people say they suck. I have no right to be mad.

Beck was the first musician I ever really liked. This will sound like a very "Tiger Beat" type of story, my apologies. I saw Beck perform on the Grammies (along w/the radio and reading "Rolling Stone" in the doctor's office, this was how I learned about music. I didn't have the internet then) and I was blown away! The tune was "Where It's At" and it was unlike anything I'd heard before. (I only listened to bluegrass previous to this.) I thought he was so good looking (the bassist too) and such an engaging performer, that was admittedly a factor. The next night when I was babysitting, I called the Top 40 station and asked if they'd play any "Beck", they said no, try the "alternative" station. Eventually I ended up buying "Odelay" (at Wal-Mart, I was afraid to go in a real music store) and it was like another language. There was rap on it! My dad hated rap! I had to listen to it on headphones for fear he'd destory it. Songs started out with screams. There was slide guitar on a song that was not country music. Songs ended with what sounded like the apocolypse to me- total cacaphony. The lyrics were so strange and beautiful. I thought "This Beck fellow is breaking EVERY LAW in the musical book" and I loved him for it. The major criticism leveled against him in the scant few articles/reviews I could find was that he was just ptuuing up an act, the music was not emotionally engaging at all. "Are they listening to the same album as me?" I wondered. It was 100% emotional to me. i.e. "Ramshackle" and "Readymade" made me cry on a few occasions, and I thought the horns in "The New Pollution" were so thrilling. I hardly ever listen to "Odelay" anymore, but just reading interviews with him got me into a lot of music. Sonic Youth, Pussy Galore, Sly & the Family Stone, Kraftwerk, Captain Beefheart, Depeche mode (if you can believe it)...those all lead to many new and wonderful artists as well. So Beck was a "gateway drug" in that sense. I'd say that's the best thing his music did for me, is getting me actively searching for new (or old, but new to me) and interesting music. I can see the whole "emotional distancing" now (I knew it was an end of an era for me, anyway, when I heard "Saxx Laws" on the Mixed Business single--"ironic" Kenny G saxophone & all. Sheesh.). I love the guy, though, and his music. I've never met another Beck fan so I have no idea whether they are insufferable. I was far too innocuous at the time I discovered him to develop any sort of pretentious hipster attitude.

As for the non-ILM sense of the question, I don't have any problem with hating things, and I've yet to be convinced that trying to supress my instinctive reactions to things is particularly valuable, but it's an interesting question. When we were talking about my persistent dislike of hip-hop, a few people did argue that I am a bad listener or a bad critic or something for not (somehow) getting over it. I ask the question myself. Am I just being a killjoy for not learning to like Britney and Destiny's Child? But then I remember that some of you think Roxette sucks (and Tori Amos, and Runrig), and suddenly I feel justified again in hating anything I want.

As Tom said here or elsewhere, the FT party-line is really just me and Tom going, "Well, then." That he persists in an insane belief in the beauty of Belle and Sebastian is regrettable, but I forgive him his trespasses against Tool, oh yes. Though Kris' comment about Tool and Roxette is currently my favorite review of the year.

"I wonder what music that purports to represent Frank Kogan would sound like."

Patrick, unless the tapes got lost in the mail, you've heard music that purports to represent Frank Kogan. But lots of music, some good, some bad, purports to represent Frank Kogan, from the arid frozen heights of "Happy Birthday" to the swampy depths of "Jingle Bells." And of course there's Blind Willie Johnson's classic "John the Revelator" - though I don't know how he got my name wrong! I said "Frank" quite clearly, was even going to write it down for him until I realized that to do so was pointless. I think he was visited the same day by John the Piano Turner, and that's what caused the confusion.

MOBY ! If anyone belongs on the list of people it's cool to dislike on ILM, he does. Nick Hornby and Guy Ritchie fit in there also, and in the case of the latter, no one has come even remotely close to an explanation beyond "he's a wanker".

"True hipsters"... now there's an oxymoron.

Patrick are you never judgemental about another human being? Irrational celebrity dislike is FUN. Also with Guy R. it is because a lot of ppl think his films are overrated and he's a very very big part of the entire UK "lad culture"/Loaded culture which tons of posters here find distasteful.

I mean it ultimately becomes impossible to argue about this because you just dismiss any reason and say "oh but thats not about the music/film/whatever" as if the context of the music/film/whatever was totally unimportant. Nobody here dislikes [band] because it is 'cool' to dislike [band], they dislike them initially because they make tedious music. That dislike then becomes fury when the tedious music suddenly becomes a supremely popular cultural touchstone.

If you really think any artist gets a raw deal on ILM then please, please, set a good example and explain why those people are *good* - that's after all what we did to start with on FT and NYLPM, trying to explain why we thought Britney and R'n'B *weren't* the devil's work. But this second-guessing and ghost-chasing after some kind of phantom hipster consensus is getting really old.

b-b-but i was chasing the hipster consensus, and now you're taking it away, just as i thought i was getting somewhere? i thought i was goona be somebody.

i'm taking my ellipse home

Oh, I think phantom hipsterism exists, though, which would make it not a phantom, I guess. Rock critics seem to be preoccupied with "pushing the envelope" and innovative music, rather than just enjoying the music. If they do enjoy the music, they feel compelled to qualify it as "just for fun" or something along those lines. It's also interesting what qualifies as "innovative" is usually just derrivitive of one or more styles of music that the rock critic decided has worth because it was original the first time around. Then, at some point, these bands become cliches because they have been referred to so many times as influences and comparisons. At some point, it won't be cool to reference the Stooges for certain hipsters. It's very simple: music is just music, no more, no less. It may be tedious to you at some point in your life, but to others it's fresh. For instance, the Janet Jackson/Madonna debate is incomprehensible to me because neither one does anything for me. Michael Jackson's "Thriller" kicks the shit out of most one-man or one-woman pop acts because it actually moves almost anyone who hears it. Is it "uncool" that Alien Ant Farm remade "Smooth Criminal"? Yeah, to me it is, but not to them or to the young kids who are new to this sort of ironic tribute. Hipsterism exists when you compare things with other things to prove your opinion on a matter as subjective as music. Oh, is it original? Is it just for fun? Is it aware of it's limitations? Does it take itself too seriously?

I LOVE MUSIC precisely because that's all I care about. The performers mean nothing to me. Lyrics often fall on deaf ears with me, too.

It's very simple: music is just music, no more, no less

i cannot accept this

MOBY ! If anyone belongs on the list of people it's cool to dislike on ILM, he does. Nick Hornby and Guy Ritchie fit in there also, and in the case of the latter, no one has come even remotely close to an explanation beyond "he's a wanker".

See, this is why I hate this board and love ILE. It's like I don't exist here. This complain about Richie-haters comes up every time Richie's name is mentioned ("You all never explain it beyond he's a wanker/fuckhead/pissbag/whatever"), and every time I explain that I think he's a very smug individual with no talent to back it up. His films are awful, irritating toss with no saving graces besides Brad Pitt. AND him and Madonna make the most obnoxious couple.

Apologies to Nude Spock, this isn't really directed at you. However:

Critics of music critics seem preoccupied with the idea that music critics don't really enjoy music, and that any enjoyment of the music must fit into a discrete area of inauthentic music enjoyment. It must be because the music is like old music the critic already enjoyed, or because it's 'fun', or 'innovative'. According to the critic of the music critic, these categories of enjoyment are clearly inauthentic - signs of a critically debilitating 'professional' approach to the music - and can be easily contrasted with the critic of the music critic's authentic appreciation of .

I think the safest thing people here can do is work on the assumption that everyone here is a music critic. Firstly, because a hell of a lot of people here do it professionally, and secondly - and more importantly - because by writing here you implicate yourself within a critical discourse re music that is both unconscious and inescapable. Unless you limit yourself to "it's just music, man!" posts, you automatically become the enemy of which you speak. And I don't think there's anything wrong with liking music because it's fun, innovative or like other music you already enjoy.

Should say: "critic of music critic's authentic appreciation of [insert potentially ironic choice here]."

As much as you'd like to overanalyze music, it's still just a matter of personal taste, as the Rock N' Roll Hall of Fame evidences. Most of the bands in there bore me to tears. But, are the bands good? Sure. If I think the Dead Milkmen are entertainment (and, occasionally, I do) then I can surely credit a band like Aerosmith (who I hate-- yes, even Toys In The Attic). If you're going to rate anything, it has to be on sales alone because music is too subjective, despite what our sense of artistic integrity might say.

How I know a band is really good (in MY opinion, of course): when i've listened to them for years and never actually saw them on tv, live or anywhere else... and ESPECIALLY when I see them and am shocked at how different they are then I thought they would be... and I still like them and their image doesn't matter at all and never did.

shit, i said i was going to try and lay off nirvana, i should really try to stick to that.