i. The UK media environment genuinely do over-expose this stuff and its very blandness does become offensive, because the attitude is: all the rubbish in the charts is awful, here is the alternative, and it hurts that the 'alternative' is eight million times more predictable and hackneyed than what's in the charts.
ii. (A more interesting reason probably). The music you're listing (Gorillaz aside) is playing on ideas of timeless, proper ways to do things, is suggesting that its classicism is free of the taint of fashion-led valuations. Sneering so unreasonably at it is a way of short-circuiting that, reminding yourself and its fans that nothing is really free of fashion-led valuations - or a way of asserting your bloodyminded autonomy in the face of the 'timeless'.
― Tom, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Please oh please explain, what's fundamentally wrong with the Beatles?
― alex in montreal, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
1. Parody can be (though isn't always) the cooing voice of admiration. Two-reasons lists are not a bad thing but a GOOD thing.
2. I didn't know you didn't like "Gorillaz". So much for your Prominent Outspoken Views which Everyone Follows like Lemmings. No, Cattle. With Foot and Mouth Disease. And big Bells on. Clanging.
Clang! Clang!
I have never heard this "Gorillaz" band anyway. Has anyone? I did read a reference to them in the Guardian the other day, though.
― the pinefox, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Ethan were you here for the "pick a disc we ALL hate" thread? — it sort of didn't work (ie was never satisfactorily concluded), cuz it got lost in problems of definition (and the assumptions it was assumed were being assumed, wrt reasons for such rulemaking).
There is always an issue about who "we" is, and abt hounding newbies out for not being "with" us as a mass. But the "with" is more to do with the unspoken rules which allow for SOME play between [a]'s approach to etiquette and [b]'s: ie if [c] aes from otusdie and behaves in such a waqy that [a] and [b]. reacting to [c], find they can no longer be in the same space, "we" are more likely to hound [c]. than [a] or [b]. who we've grown fond of. Aren't we?
― mark s, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Of course, I reckon 2-step mixes of any of the ILM-disendorsed artists would improve them immesurably. Only, nobody took me up on my suggestion vis a vis "Yellow".
― Tim, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― gareth, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― junichiro, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Hi, my name is Alex and I like Coldplay. I think that their songs are very pleasant and non-offensive to my ears, and despite the constant playing of 'Yellow' around here, I still enjoy the song for what it is. I even paid $30 CAN (uh, about 66 pounds) to go see them...and I really enjoy the gig. Yes, I tell my friends ("We didn't think you'd be into them") that I just went to see Grandaddy open for them, but it's a lie. I truly enjoy Coldplay's music.
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.
I don't like gorillaz, Damon's post modern art gags are beginning to bore me.
― p f. sloane, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― dave q, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Dan Perry, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Dr. C, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― MJ Hibbett, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
You don't like Stereolab? Come around to mine and I'll put on Dots and Loops and change your mind. ; - o
― glenn mcdonald, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
...and u r foolish to disagree with me. isn't that basically what u r saying here? a bit hypocritical i think.
[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....
― Andrew L, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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?
― Lyra, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― David Raposa, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Nitsuh, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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?
― Curt, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Ally, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
Nitsuh's and Curt's replies: very very interesting.
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...
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.
― Michael Daddino, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Mark, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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!"
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.)
― Josh, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― bnw, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
― Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 1 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
Me too. Musical epiphanies: classic.
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
― matthew m., Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― dave q, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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
― Patrick, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Nude Spock, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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
― gareth, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
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.
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
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
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
― Tim, Thursday, 30 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Tim, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― Nude Spock, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link
― ethan, Friday, 31 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-two years ago) link