the impulse to group-historicise vs the causes of bad writing

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

follow-up to:
(a) a post i made on freakytigger's thread
and
(b) the part of my EMP paper which i actually pussied out of and didn't explore (as requested by dickmalone


(a) i was wondering about the social context "ver kidz" are downloading all this material INTO, and suggested that the impulse to group-historicise what's shared is going to catch up with every new generation as it gets older (probably sooner as the mass requiring retrospective organisation will be massier)

by this i mean that there comes a point -- an age -- when things in yr life (like interaction w.yr own kids, or death of parents, or mid-life crisis) cause you to take stock of yr life so far and the choice you made; but -- while in its full effect there is an atomised, solitary just-you element to it, there is also (always) a social element, as in did "i dodge my generation's bullet?" vs "haha what were we thinking?"... the social aspect will be responded to, media-wise (at its most basic, this is what nostalgia-media is about, and there is LOTS of it, catering, often very differently, to a succession of different generations)... my speculation about the sheer quantity of information the young'uns are processing leading to a speedier mnedia of recapitulation'n'revision is exactly that, speculation --- but i do think that if the carousel is whirling ever faster and noiser, then more ppl will step off or fall off sooner, and their consolation-needs will kick in more urgently

(b) specifically what i meant by "results in bad writing" (which thus goes on to create bad music) -- tho as i say i pussied out of this part of my paper and ended up not thinking it through -- is rock after punk created a language of critical success that stresses lines of established influence, as well as innovation and breakthrough within those lines (form being thus: "xyz, influenced by green on red and pigbag, is the first band to combine ska and salsa with indie hiphop")... this is bad writing (to me) bcz it immediately goes on to evade the important bit, which is to answer the question "SO WHAT?" in respect of this analysis (viz my war on the word "influence", which to me is the touchstone of this failure: a shared understanding of the significance is taken for granted right at the point it should be being explored)

my conclusion in ref.good writing was that maybe the TEST OF SPACE can be formulated (in the extreme abstract) thusly: "Does it matter to you that it matters to me (and vice versa)?"

Comments

[koganbot]

so i think the analytical argument kicked in abt the time it became necessary to argue -- within rock -- that we were going back to RESCUE the genre from where vit went wrong, and to cite (as roots of quality) elements OVERLOOKED AT THE TIME; generally meaning the VELVET UNDERGROUND obv

Wait wait wait, (1) delete "as roots of quality" and this was a very good argument that (2) was made by actual human beings, e.g., Lester Bangs (who'd have used the Troggs more than the Velvets as his touchstone), Dave Marsh (would have picked Question Mark or the Miracles), Peter Laughner (Velvets all the way), etc. etc. etc., and that (3) wasn't about influence actually, but was more along the lines of "How do we do what they were able to do, what's wrong with now that's preventing us - or the MC5, anyway - from being able to do what they did then? Let's try to bring it (garage rock, punk rock, power pop, bubblegum) back into rock, as a return of the repressed, but in our own way, and let's search out within the present the things that seem to have that potential to go somewhere not part of the Dull Ugly Respectable Rock Behemoth, so maybe reach for metal or glam or even Abba or the Carpenters if need be," and that (4) influenced me so that in the mid 1980s I took it as a model for how to attack the postpunk alternative-indie rock world and call for a new regeneration.