Pop Solipsism

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

Even for me this is a nebulous thort so bear with me:

I was talking on another blog about vocals, specifically Bobby Gillespie's vocals, and I said:

"Bobby G is kind of a unique case because he - perhaps creditably* - tries to make his voice go along with a whole BUNCH of old-timey stylistic tropes: rawk vocals, psych hippie vocals (as here), even GOSPEL at times. And IMO he really doesn't have the voice for any of them - it's just too thin.

*though I don't think so: I think it's a symptom of a (very British?) punk overhang where the will to do something became more important than the ability to do it. So "This is our Stones track" was enough to make a track "their Stones track". "There's always been a dance element to our music" and "We're gonna be the biggest band in the world" and such statements (not by Primal Scream necessarily) are other examples. It's an extension of a solipsism which came in with New Pop, I think, and which made that particular scene so vibrant but has really not helped British music since."

Now I think I have a kernel of a point here, though "will to do something" isn't exactly it, and I don't think it's specifically British either: I remember reading some Kogan stuff about the idea of something standing in for the reality in re. 80s US punkers and indie guys, except he phrased it slightly differently.

And it ties in with Lex's recent complaints about how Lady GaGa seems to operate by saying "I am original and artistic" as often as possible until people believe it.

The New Pop reference is to the idea that in 1980-82 a load of bands said "Right, we are making Pop Music and we intend that the charts reflect that", and by luck and timing and judgement it WORKED and they actually did rush into the charts and take over (a bit). But since then it's more often been the declaration rather than the realization that's won people over.

This all boils down to "When is it bad to declare your ambition?"

Comments

[koganbot]

I don't think Lady GaGa is necessarily relevant here, since "Just Dance" as dance pop doesn't state her artistic ambitions - or at least doesn't state her artistic ambitions in anything other than the same way that the Danitys and Pussys and Stupid Shits state similar artistic ambitions in their music (have only read short excerpts of an interview with GaGa once, but she might well think that what she says about the potential for art in her music/performance applies every bit as much to Danity Kane and the Pussycat Dolls and Girlicious as it does to her; if she's consistent she ought to think this). A listener who believes in the Madonna-Warhol "everybody is a star/you know who you are" ethos may believe that it's implicitly contained in all dance pop that has lead vocalists, even if the Danitys and Girlshits have never thought to apply the word "art" to themselves. That doesn't mean that the ambitions announced by their music can't be considered art ambitions. (I have no idea if Danicous and Girlypiss have ever used the word "art" in reference to themselves; the Pussyshits may well have.)

Whereas the sound of Primal Scream's Stoneish (or Black Crowesish) music makes promises about being like the Stones. And our ideas of Animal Collective's sonic ambitions comes from listening to them not from reading interviews, right?

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

This is true. Though I think category 2 in my little chart up there doesn't necessarily need to come from interviews per se -- it can also come from a critical discussion. When Lex and Mike (and to a lesser extent I) say stuff like "we don't hear what you're hearing," we're basically saying "the conversation about this music is not syncing up with the music we're hearing." It's that does-not-compute thing, except the issue is that it's easier to dismiss a single person/artist's statements than it is to dispute a consensus among individuals who ALL claim the statements we find problematic (to the extent that we don't find it in the music).

The 1-2-3 model was intended to remove certain artists from consideration of your particular framework -- that is, I'm saying Lady Gaga doesn't belong in a conversation about "symbol for the event," etc., and that in their own way, AC don't belong in that conversation either, though they're closer than Gaga, who seems more like an anomaly to me.

[skyecaptain.livejournal.com]

*dismiss consensus, not dispute. It's actually quite easy to dispute!