We Hate Music

"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.