We Hate Music

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (130 of them)
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.

Patrick, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

bnw, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Tim, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Michael Daddino, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

Me too. Musical epiphanies: classic.

Michael Daddino, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"'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.

Michael Taylor, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

matthew m., Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

dave q, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"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.

Frank Kogan, Monday, 6 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

three weeks pass...
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".

Patrick, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

Nude Spock, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Tom, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

gareth, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Nude Spock, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

i cannot accept this

gareth, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Ally, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Tim, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

Tim, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Nude Spock, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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.

Nude Spock, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

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

ethan, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.