ext_380265 ([identity profile] dubdobdee.livejournal.com) wrote in [community profile] poptimists2005-11-25 01:49 pm

further judicial essays in i-word demolition

i am gradually working up to a GRAND UNIFIED GUESS-MY-THEORY of IRONY i think:

here is the working so far (yes i use NYPLM for my CONFUSING SCRIBBLED NOTES, wot of it?)
A. ironic isn't the word
B. no, it REALLY REALLY isn't
C. bcz it DOESN'T EXIST



interweb plz complete correct my homework thxbye

[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com 2005-11-25 02:06 pm (UTC)(link)
Liked the Mike Flowers entry a lot - yr thinking seems to be leading towards a theory of irony as (not) practised by musicians as opposed to fans.

Whot about the Darkness? I think the whole irony element there was massively overplayed, b/c it rested on the very shaky idea that the only way you could find metal funny was from a position of outsider disdain.

[identity profile] freakytigger.livejournal.com 2005-11-25 02:23 pm (UTC)(link)
In fact the idea that music can be funny (not necc. comedic but funny) (i loathe the phrase "unintentionally funny" btw) and that its funniness is a good thing and IN NO WAY changes the other good things about it (& enhances some of them) is the big gauntlet that very few ppl outside mid-80s Smash Hits have wanted to pick up.

[identity profile] steviespitfire.livejournal.com 2005-11-25 02:17 pm (UTC)(link)
i find yr points ix and x on NYLPM particularly interesting.

ix. because the idea that a cover might "open up" a song is not new but ususally cover wd be "reverential". Is yr idea that "reverential" is meaningless and a "reverential" cover is no different from a non-serious one and yet, perhaps, the so-called non-serious approach draws more from the original? (YSIs for comparison, pls)

x. because, yeah, i have no direct experience of this "old space" and i would be interested to hear how you think it functioned/would function today.