OK, is this the worst piece of music writing ever?

of course they exist - but are they any kind of "spectacle"? anything that needs to be debated, or talked about in terms of defining critical parameters? are they really ANGRY about what rock critics write? the rockist horde is pretty much made-up at this point

sorry xpost to forks there

ahhh that makes sense, intheblanks and j

I think there's kind of a false populism to the approach Ann Powers is describing, one that, like I said, is really only suited to critics whose job it is to listen to and consider everything. When I was younger, having angry, prejudiced opinions about music was part of the passion and fun of being a music fan. Now I don't have those so much anymore, but I also just don't feel as much desire to force myself to consider music that doesn't appeal to me. I mean I still have curiosity and will still give almost anything at least one listen, but I just don't have the time and energy for the sophisticated, all-embracing tolerance she suggests. I'm perfectly willing to concede that I might be missing something interesting about the way Miley Cyrus's presence alters the meaning of a song written for Rihanna, I just don't have a reason to care.

I never liked Lester Bangs at all, but I get why people liked Lester Bangs, because he writes about music in a way that touches on the connection his readers feel with liking and disliking certain kinds of music. There are people who write about pop and dance music with the same kind of fervor, including many all the time on ILM, and I like that spirit. All this "consider the fact that they are trying to make money" stuff still feels bloodless to me. I don't have a problem with people writing thinkpieces about Miley Cyrus or any other artist. It's all worth writing about. But I find writers that mistrust their gut opinions about things too much to be very dull.

brio, i dunno about critical parameters but they have buying power and disproportionate impact because of it in much the same way that country (where people still routinely buy physical media) does. They spend money on tickets, they buy albums in digital and physical format, they buy the t-shirt and the magazine and that makes them an industry rudder that determines a certain type of market and reflective discourse. Or maybe we're talking different types of inside baseball here; that is entirely possible too.

maybe so... I guess I'm just wondering what any of that has to do with critics writing about Beyonce or Rihanna or whatever, who are also HUGE

I think mostly I'm saying the angry white guy who's mad about drum machines, rap, and Beyonce is just a dated old and not particular useful trope

whole "rockist" thing seems super dated to me now. maybe they're talking about their image of country fans but don't wanna say that?

i think 'technocratic' is a good word there, if there were just the right counterpart to that perspective in the sphere of ethical/social/private culture, that would be perfect.

a lot of the times when this sort of a recurrent mess is on my mind i think of the picture nietzsche paints in the first two untimely meditations of the state of culture as basically one in which there's a constant bustle underway to know all the little factoids about everything little thing in all the ages, so as to count oneself as cultured, without ever incorporating any of it, without ever being fundamentally dissatisfied with the resultant failure to grow from within or really change in any way, risk anything. (that's a bad summary.) it's basically the food-review internet that katherine mentioned the other day on her tumblr, or the npr music model of 'here's another cultural thing!', or (i'm saying) the tepid reframing of fights-about-music in that wilson/powers convo into the territory of no-fault humane universality.

i don't know how but i feel like the posture is simultaneously agreeing, what you listen to matters for who you are (matters ethically, spiritually, politically, etc.), while also in practice not really believing that it matters. and it comes across, that disbelief.

'here's another cultural thing!'

could easily be the name of an NPR program

and yet another great post from j

I don't know how but i feel like the posture is simultaneously agreeing, what you listen to matters for who you are (matters ethically, spiritually, politically, etc.), while also in practice not really believing that it matters.

Also the fact that the critic's approach doesn't actually reflect that "mattering" since it's so flat and all-encompassing

Tell me more about "normal people", ILX.

they listen to Stockhausen and Albert Ayler

but only from their husband's stupid record collections

me and Hurting at the same place age- and interest-wise it sounds like

do you like your husband's stupid record collection?

well I was referring to this part in particular:

I also just don't feel as much desire to force myself to consider music that doesn't appeal to me. I mean I still have curiosity and will still give almost anything at least one listen, but I just don't have the time and energy for the sophisticated, all-embracing tolerance she suggests. I'm perfectly willing to concede that I might be missing something interesting about the way Miley Cyrus's presence alters the meaning of a song written for Rihanna, I just don't have a reason to care.

esp when the particulars in question (in this case Miley and Rihanna) are clearly not designed to speak to me or anything I care about.

right, I mean if you want me to think about the fact that they're out to sell records, well they're not out to sell records to me!

to be clear I'm not complaining that there's not enough cultural media out there catering to the tastes of aging straight white dudes, it's just that in general pop music is not really aimed at me. that's cool, I don't have a problem with it, but don't expect me to care about it or strawman me with various accusations of prejudice if I'm not interested.

so i was right. cool.

katherine is really a great poster and I really hope one day she stops with the passive aggressive god-SORRY-i-guess-i-should-just-jump-off-a-CLIFF schtick

No amount of intellectualizing is ever going to make me enjoy MC. Lots of the point people bring up also have to do with authenticity, but a pop authenticity. The idea that she is "Doing whatever she wants" is some form of pop authenticity. The idea that the process of manufacturing pop product in itself somehow lends validity to it is another instance of pop authenticity. Dividing the audience into a binary of "Haters" and an un-labelled group encompassing fans, casual mainstream music listeners, and sophisticated/post-rockist pop critics alike is pop authenticity.

so i was right. cool.

I'd say the odds are against it but I have no idea what you're referring to so whatever

dnftt

please keep feeding the troll, it's kind of funny

apologies for being passive-aggressive, it wasn't intended that way but obviously intention isn't really the thing

anyway anyone who claims there is no longer a critical mass of people who are worried about drum machines/rap/Beyonce in 2014 should spend the next year or two telling people they write about miley cyrus and really liked her album (doesn't matter if you did or not) and see what kind of reactions you get

The problem with that thought experiment is that there are a myriad of reasons to dislike the Miley Cyrus album beyond being a rockist.

Like, it's perfectly reasonable to be a fan of hip-hop influenced pop music and think "We Can't Stop" is braying, misshapen garbage; disliking that song and its album does not actually mean that all you want to listen to is Neil Young.

katherine OTM, frustrated with this entire discussion, most non-writers I know have no idea about these terms and what they are, and a NYT article is gonna be many people's entry point, it's important to comment and rebut etc. etc. instead of assuming that everybody in the world is on a page, up to date-- you can't assume those who aren't aware of these terms are "old" and/or not into music writing.

But disliking this album sometimes meant that you wanted to listen to Imagine Dragons.

xpost

Well... no. I wanted to listen to Kelly Rowland.

(also: Lorde)

brb gonna listen to "Kisses Down Low" for the 15,345th time.

this spectacle of people (mostly straight white men of a certain age) angry that we treat music made with drum machines, or for dance floors, or with rapping (unless it's 'political'), or by Beyoncé with the same respect and depth of thought we'd devote to anthems sung by bands of guys with guitars.

this feels pretty strawmanny especially on ILM where a lot of the anti-orthodoxy views wrt to pop vs. rockism are pretty distinctly influenced by white guys and sometimes and former posters of a certain age like xhuxk and kogan etc etc

Dear flamboyant goon tie which Lorde song were you talking abt being abt REAL ROCK being REAL MUSIC

her seger cover

i am totally listening to the Steve Miller Band right now. and the BC bud has really kicked in. shout out to the Hudson's Bay Company.

Well, jokes on me for wading in here, but "rockism" doesn't need to only apply to rock music, obv. Rockism imo is the dead puppy borne out of performative music practice, i.e. "people playing things", oldest trick in the book, you've got tonnes of people walking away from "learning instruments" with a taste for music that is visibly performed, and an appreciation for apparent skill in that performance. If you think that this is out-of-style, you just need to check out I dunno Imagine Dragons or Clean Bandit or Youtube videos of people playing things-- and rockism happens when some twisted/young/dumb/frustrated individuals (many-of-them powerful) will take this taste for performed music and twist it into "Miley sucks and is for children". Discussions about "the authenticity of a performance" are going to always exist while people enjoy performed music. Many of Lorde's artistic decisions, i.e. the format of her live instrumentation (stripped down, all sound sources visibly "performed"), the monologues she delivers onstage, the lyrics of "Royals", suggest that she comes from a background in performative arts and values things like authenticity. Same goes for The XX. Would never accuse either act of fetishizing anything but think they value many of the same things that so-called rockists do.

Ok that makes sense, thanks. Authenticity/honesty of some kind's p universally valued tho, isn't it? Like, how many beloved/critically discussed performers don't give a shit abt it (Dean Martin? The guy frm Limp Bizkit, maybe?), and do their audiences know?

Sure sure but I'm looking for some Germanic extended version of the word that is the "implied evidence of authorship and/or musicianship" flavour of authenticity

Well, Miley sucks and is for children. No one ever actually refutes this statement.

Oh no, as opposed to Serious music for adult men

metal is for children

Oh no, as opposed to Serious music for adult men

― brimstead, Tuesday, April 15, 2014 10:20 PM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wait a second, you are expanding my mind here

my gosh, ten years on ILM and now thanks to you I finally get it

adults listen to the news on the way in to work, the rest of us are children, thank god

Serious music for adult men

perfect Nick Lowe sequel

Adulthood is a social construct. I listen to Raffi on the way to work.

The guy frm Limp Bizkit, maybe?

no the dudes from bizkit are serious abt what they do and Wes is a big nerd ass guitar mag zappa type dude they probably would talk yr fuckin ear off about how Tool are the greatest musicians that ever walked the earth and shit

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away cyrusish things.