We Hate Music

Frank: things which purport to represent me, infact, do to so honestly, do have to be fairly stupid.

Nothing could possibly suck more life out of ILM than an extended meta-discussion of what ILM should or shouldn't be, or a bunch of rules meant to clarify the data for your personal hypotheses.

I dunno, I think we should have way more discussions about rules. It cracks me up endlessly. I think I should start making all my personal real life discussions with people EXACTLY like this meta crap.

Music criticism as Calvinball. Discuss.

not here to say any more on the question except that 11235's story about beck is shockingly close to mine only that i had slightly more innovative musical background (read: public enemy) and yet still the album totally destroyed me. emotion, god, i can barely listen to ramshackle without going through dangerous psychological lows. odelay had impact during my times of great happiness and was there for me in break-ups and teenage depression. and even besides that, it's still an incredible pop album, and certainly one of the most important turning-points in my music listening history. i don't buy any of that about beck's detachment at all, even midnite vultures had genuine moments of pathos and joy on it. and dismissing an artist for their fans not being into the artist's influences 'enough' for you is the most elitist thing i've ever heard. what, is a fourteen year old supposed to get into mantronix and dick hyman off the fucking radio back in 1996? odelay was like a whole different world to me, and apparently to at least a few other people. 11235's story is the sort of thing i want to see on i love music, and it couldn't have been randomly inserted into a more apt thread. 'bring on the hate' my ass, bring the fucking love.

(random closing thought; i've made some rather vitrolic comments about nirvana before, but i just realized how my (and 11235's) beck stories are startlingly similar to all those nirvana tales i always hear from twenty-somethings about how their entire world being opened up by the band, and so in the future i'll try and lay off a little)

I don't have any close friends that share my musical tastes, so I'm constantly having to explain exactly WHY I don't like some fearful adult-contemporary pish or some awful nu-something-or-other. (*Diversion*: For some reason, I love the Tom-coined phrase "fearful indie pish". Even though some might say that epithet can be accurately applied to a number of my CDs. The idea of "pish" so massively inept that it can strike terror into the heart of Tom is endlessly amusing to me. Can we add "pish-rock" to the ILM lexicon? *End Diversion*). Being forced to formulate and re-formulate "my listening aesthetic" in order to include and exclude certain music (all of this in terms that can be explained to an engineering student who just wants to know why I won't sing along to Crazy Town) has proven to be a personally valuable exercise. So, yes, while I think the instant "Do I like it?" response shouldn't be ignored (betrayed?), the "squashing" and dissecting of our impulse reactions can help us consider questions like "What SHOULD music be?" ( see Mark's thread)

Try this: Think of song that you're certain you just Don't Like or Hate, even. Now, forage through your record collection ( if your collection is one of Ned-like proportions, then alert close friends and relatives as to your activity in order to save yourself that messy "Missing Persons" paperwork later ) and find the album or song that most closely resembles the one that you Don't Like. Now, mentally-articulate the differences between the two beyond any reasonable doubt.

"Music criticism as Calvinball. Discuss. "

First rule: Originality and "soul" don't count for shit when you're criticizing music after noon!!!

HAHA, BECK RULES NOW!!! I WIN!!!

I like this discussion. A couple more points:

-To answer Tom's initial question, hating bands irrationally is (or can be) fun, and I think that really it's more the smug goes-without-saying dismissals I have a problem with. Irrational dismissals can get pretty boring themselves though - I hate when it gets too high school-like, one guy saying that Bon Jovi rools and Def Leppard are faggots and pussies, the next guy saying the exact opposite, neither of them capable of discussing WHY that is the case. But I certainly don't think people should try not to hate - know what you love (and why), know what you hate (and why).

- "hype"/image/overexposure is not a lame-ass reason. It's the social aspect of art coming into play.

I fail to see how dismissing the Strokes for being hyped or Macy Gray for getting critical approval is any different from attacking teen-pop for being manufactured - all those judgments cut the actual sounds on the actual records out of the picture.

- I love Ninjasquid's post about her discovery of Beck.

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

Alex obviously forgot that all rules are made opposite by the facts that a) it is the first day of August, b) he lives in Canada. Therefore, Beck still sucks.

Also, Curt's reply rules. And I like Travis and the Strokes. And I don't think Timbaland is God. So neener neener.

Patrick, that would be one hundred percent true if all musicians that got hyped were instantly slammed by the ILM secret cabal (I have no idea who's on this beyond Tom, actually). Only, they're not, and only certain hyped artists/bands are. In fact a number of over-hyped artists would fit into the ILM Canon that was grumbled over a week or so ago.

Can I jump in and conclude that maybe the reasons for hating a given artist are a combination of haters' aesthetic/musical tastes and their resentment at the artist being overhyped? Disregarding the specific choices, doesn't it make sense that a combination of (subjectively perceived) awful music and inexplicable hype would make an object of hate more hateworthy than the sum of its parts?

You can say the same for manufactured pop as well, but a lot of anti-pop people admit quite openly that they'll hate any manufactured group or artist on principle, or alternatively reason that it's the manufactured-ness of the music that makes it unlikable. I guess it's possible to hate an artist for being manufactured while liking another artist despite their being manufactured to the same degree or greater (or even because of it), but it's logically inconsistent and it undermines the power of the anti-manufactured argument.

Question of the day: What if they held a Cabal and nobody showed up?

and dismissing an artist for their fans not being into the artist's influences 'enough' for you is the most elitist thing i've ever heard. what, is a fourteen year old supposed to get into mantronix and dick hyman off the fucking radio back in 1996?

That's not what I meant at all.

Roughly speaking, what I objected wasn't that people say things like "I like Beck because he mixes acoustic and electronic musics, uses samples in a deft manner, is surreal, etc." Rather, what I object to is when people say "I think Beck is a pioneer because he mixes acoustic and electronic musics, uses samples in a deft manner, is surreal, etc."

Calling someone a pioneer or copycat demands a reasonably thorough sense of cultural history; calling someone good or bad doesn't.

I love Ninjasquid's post about her discovery of Beck.

Me too. Musical epiphanies: classic.

"'Real' is a convenient label to signify depth, enrichment, truth.....in the marketing of ANYTHING. I suppose it's a reflection of how OLD pop/rock is now that these attributes appeal more than just about any other when selling 'new' music. Other categories - ICONIC (Madonna?), COOL, (BUT NOT TOO WIERD)- Air, Daft Punk?

Can any music be successfully sold to the masses today on the basis that it's FAKE? Or NOVEL? Can't think of any right now, but I have a boring meeting to go to now to chew this over."

The KLF made a career out of doing just that. I seriously recommend reading any of their printed material. Their thoughts on the industry are pretty on the money.

Tom: By 'concrete musical reasons," I didn't mean the reasons themselves, I meant 'concrete ideas,' rational ideas to explain why someone doesn't like something. Your explanation about disliking Gorillaz for irrational reasons is an explanation unto itself: "I just don't like them. There's something about them that doesn't sound right to me, and that's how I feel when I hear them, so I don't like to listen to them." Any truthful explanation is a good one for satisfying curiosity and providing a straightfoward way to judge one's opinion objectively.

junichiro: Please do not be offended by my use of hyperbole.

Official: ROXETTE SUCKS. How do I know this? Because right now I've got my dick in her mouth.

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.