more pop filosophie: discuss

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

We all read fluxblog, don't we? Yes, of course, we do. Matthew really seems to have raised his game over the last year or so, don't you think? Well, I just wanted to call people's attention to a post he updated yesterday. Somehow I would expect we'll all agree with his basic idea, if not about the specific example, although there's quite a bit too tease out.

I'll excerpt the relevant bit:

I'd like to address this comment left in the box below, which more or less echoes what I was railing against the last time I wrote about CSS at length:

I'm sure Lovefoxxx is not emoting that much. She's in a dance band for crying out loud and not a very good one. - Anon

To a certain extent this (obviously quite brave!) anonymous poster is entitled to their opinion, and since it is apparent that they haven't given this a great deal of thought, it's not really worth arguing with them, at least not in the interest of trying to change their mind. But honestly, there's no way I can read this sort of comment without assuming some pretty harsh things -- mainly, that they seem to have extremely rigid and unimaginative ideas about what signifies intelligent and emotionally moving art.

I think that a lot of the problem that some people run into with CSS is that their record is very much a product of the present tense, and though I believe that accounts for a great deal of its beauty, art that is so tied into a moment that will inevitably pass tends to freak out a certain type of insecure fan who demands permanence and timelessness, often because they are terrified of ever having to admit that they enjoyed something that has since become dated. If you want to cling to the notion of having an imagined aesthetic upper hand, you will most likely become allergic to this sort of music, and find refuge in safe bets. If you've conditioned yourself to think of contemporary culture (especially internet culture) as being an endless stream of vulgar novelty -- a notion that is not entirely inaccurate, by the way -- you've most likely blinded yourself to any art that speaks to the humanity and emotional truth of experiences within that culture.

Personally, I remember quite clearly a moment at uni when my roommate and I were questioning "Will we always like this music?" although for us I think it was a given that the music was timeless, and while it was we that would become dated.

Comments

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Nothing's wrong with it!

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

We want to love our music the way we (might) love our husband/wives, deeply and forever, constantly learning something new! Nothing wrong with dating the cutie for in apartment across the hall for a few months, or a nasty shag with that person from the club last night but...

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

are you saying that all u2 fans are hopeless sociopaths who invest emotions in records rather than people?

and if not, WHY NOT? :)

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[pot80.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't think that's the case! It's more like that's a mindset that drives certain attractions. I'd like to think that I personally juggle the two extremes, which is probably a pretty healthy place to be, getting the depth of long-term fandom and the thrill of loving things in the moment, and not expecting or needing them to extend beyond that.

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

i don't know, U2 seem to be the achetypal band that attract this sort of thing (this being the fault of rattle & hum and bonio's god complex).

see also the swarm of badness that descended on xrrf (http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2007/02/oh-thats-all-we-need.html) last week when he said the forthcoming ocean colour scene alBUM might be a bit sh!t...

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[pot80.livejournal.com]

See, I think U2 has enough major hits that they attract a lot of fickle fans who are approaching from the more pop-driven perspective. Radiohead is so focused on albums, and everything about their fandom seems centered on their Importance and Greatness and Relevance that they would probably be a better posterboy for this sort of thing. Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin too -- artists that really do whatever they can to discourage the notion that they can be enjoyed as a singles act, even if they do have some pretty big hit singles.

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

hmmm, i dunno, i'm pretty certain that the proper sizeable hardcore have been with them since unforgetable fire, through the ups and downs. also the radioheads have been much keener to p!ss off their fans due to eg lack of chorus, which u2 haven't even gotten close to because they're engaged in a pact with (a certain sizeable minority) of their audience who want/need them to MEAN something that they're happy to oblige...

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[pot80.livejournal.com]

Good point.

newsflash: internet full of mentalists!

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

OMG those comments are crazy. who knew OCS still had fans, let alone such rabid ones?

is simon an ILXor (or poptimist), does anyone know?

Re: newsflash: internet full of mentalists!

[carsmilesteve.livejournal.com]

not to the best of my knowledge, but then i don't rly look at ilm ever, and i'd hav ethought that would have been his natural habitat ;)

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

Nooooo, I enter all my relationships with a song/album in the hope that it'll be an intense fling, caning it and listening to it over and over again on loop for about a month, with the expectation that something else will probably come along then to replace it. And then I know I'll get bored of it and be unable to listen to it for about a year or two, then I'll rediscover it in a gorgeous flurry of reminiscence.

Which isn't to say that I mind when a song becomes like a long-term partner, but that's not what I look for.

I'm not sure what the original post is getting at? I love 'Let's Make Love...' but this enjoyment isn't predicated on the meaning of the lyrics at all, more the sound of the words and the beat. Which is a kind of emotion. I'm actually in a sort of "rediscovery" phase with the song! Inspired by being completely unable to remember how their new single goes, returning to the album to find it was a hookless, joyless guitar dirge, and skipping back to 'Let's Make Love...' instead.

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[blue-russian.livejournal.com]

I enter all my relationships with a song/album in the hope that it'll be an intense fling

Also an option, obviously. These two things may just be a new metaphor for rock vs pop (I hope not, although I am much happier to be on the swingers mailing list than the moral majority's :)

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

if they are a new metaphor for rock vs pop then one of the curiosities is that rock and pop switched roles in the last 30 years

(ie in the 60s rock was the symbol of wild fling/hard shag, and pop was more demure, if youthful, and more staid and long-term if pre-rock)

(one of my ways of deploying "rockism" as a crit was when symbolic wild fling/hard shag was being unthinkingly invoked as bedrock for STANDS THE TEST OF TIME)

Re: Me agreeing with Matt, pretty much:

[alexmacpherson.livejournal.com]

"I'M GONNA STAND THE TEST OF TIME
I'M GONNA TAKE BACK WHAT IS MINE"

sez Rachel in one of her least good singles