Testing Testing

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

At the EMP music seminar last year dubdobdee presented a paper in which he contrasted - or promised to contrast - the "test of time" and the "test of space" when analysing (not just pop) music. I can't remember exactly what the "test of space" is in this schema but ANYWAY I wanted to ask the question (for a P4K column most likely) of why an artform where instancy is apparently such a big element attracts so much 'test of time' rhetoric, and also which OTHER tests one might apply.

Comments

this jumped into mind on the bus

[dubdobdee.livejournal.com]

(and i haven't read upthread yet to see if it's tackled)

test of time = how *i* will think of it in ten years time
vs
test of time = how *"people like me"* will think of it in ten years time
vs
test of time = how *the world* will think of it in ten years time

these are all different judgements -- the first merely somewhat acknowledges that excitement can trump sense; the third is a gamble against history's authority; the second hedges its bets in an interesting way (bcz it leavves room for a fudge on how my judgement of "people like me" is going to shift)

my argument at EMP was essentially that second-guessing the future is a fuck-awful way of thinking critically and responsible for a LOT of the bad writing in rock (interestingly there's been a mounting tide of crit during the US presidential election about the "horserace" or tipster element in coverage, at the expense of discussion of substative issues: the point being that it absolves political journalists of having to examine facts vs lies -- let alone good vs bad in ref ppolitical programmes -- to be able to opine on whater such and such a platform, regardless of merit, is "electable")

i guess the underlying argt in rockcrit is that genuine value will win over chartwise -- that the charts of the timeless are truth-bearing in a way we "all know" the charts of the day never are

(ok now i will read the above)