When Mark met Simon

great stuff

innnit

*Bump*

Given Woebot's recent ruminations on this interview and the new ones from Ballardian and Socialist Worker, i thought perhps it was time to resurrect this thread. I remember being surprised at the time that there was so little reaction to it and then promptly forgot it existed. Now that it has surfaced again, with additions, I have a couple of thoughts.

Regarding the lack of inter-blog discourse, Woebot's right on the money. This forum has all but eliminated the need for the hourly blog checks I used to make. Instead, I come here to read or post. If I did post responses to blog posts on my lonely little corner of blogspot, would anybody read it? Certainly it is unlikely to get noticed by the heavy-hitters like blissblogger and Woebot. Frankly, I see Dissensus as a positive step away from the insular discussions that used to take place between those early adopters. I enjoyed reading them, but with everybody closing their comment boxes I had no real opportunity to respond. Perhaps that's the way the early blogosphere group it. Despite Simon's lack of enthusiasm, I think this is much better.

Regarding the internet having "extinguished the idea of the true underground," I don't buy that at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. Simon is right, of course, that the internet has opened up new ideas to each and every one of us. What's missing from that statement, however, is that in order for exposure to occur, first one must locate the idea/art/music. I tend to think of the internet as a garbage dump; a fetid sea of garbled OMG! ROTFLMAO! and pornography. Rising out of the ocean are odd islands of novelty and passion, which from time to time collect into an archipelago of original ideas/art/music. Myspace was, as Woebot points out, just such a grouping. That is until it became so bloated with crap as to collapse back into the Sargasso under its own weight. Simon states (or at least seems to) that it is easier to find novelty using the internet, thereby precluding the existence of a "true" underground. I would argue that only the truly devoted can and do navigate the ex[in]cremental currents of the web to locate that which we seek. Granted, I might never have discovered grime or dubstep without Dissensus, but I would never have discovered Dissensus without first reading Energy Flash. EF lead me to blissout, which lead me to blissblog, which lead me to Woebot and k-punk and heronbone and sherburne and a myriad of others. I searched, I scoured, I discarded, I discovered. How many of the internet using public are so dedicated?

I would also point to the example of Facebook. For the uninitiated, Facebook is like Myspace without the tunes (although that may be coming soon). One can set up groups and events, post pictures, send both public (via a comments wall) and private (via an email-ish interface) messages and eventually amass a staggering group of all the people you have ever met in you lifetime. When one joins, one is asked to join a "Network". Said Network is along geographic lines. I, for example, am in the Saint John, New Brunswick, Canada group. As a member of said Network, I am free to peruse the profiles of most of the other members of my Network. Sure there are privacy functions, and one can readily block everyone but friends from seeing one's details, but the whole thing is along local rather than international lines. The same can be said of events. If one wants to see all of the local party events occurring on a given weekend, it is a question of clicking the mouse. I know, because that is exactly what I did when I first moved here six months ago. I quickly found a group of like-minded electronic music enthusiasts and have my first gig at one of their parties next weekend. Would I have found this group of people without Facebook? Perhaps eventually. The fact that I did so very quickly and that the group is small relative to the local population and is still managing to keep a regular party schedule says to me that internet users are shying away from the global and focusing inward at the local. In my estimation, the increasing popularity of utilities like Facebook is more likely to grow local scenes than break global ones.

Right, that’s killed most of the afternoon. Anyone else?

I dunno, posting on a forum or a blog comments box is hardly as exciting as exploring various little clubs and gigs and meeting people in the flesh, dressing up, socialising, etc...
Although, as you point out the web can facilitate these experiences in the first place, facebook being an example of this.
As much as I love reading about music on blogs and sites, clubs like Chibuku, Voodoo and Evol in Liverpool were the big formative experiences on my musical upbringing.

Perhaps the lack of musical innovation nowadays (yeah, that old chestnut again, sorry) is the fact that people can so easily stay within their own little musical clique or milieu.
As opposed to "making do", trying to squeeze their musical vision into some sort of acceptable (for a particular scene) shape, or sticking out entirely on their own, either way creating interesting mutations.

I'd like to know what people here think of Reynold's statement:

It could also be larger than that, though: it could be that it’s not a specific genre but music as a whole that has ceased to be at the driving center of the culture. That is something I find hard to get my head around, but you could certainly argue that’s something that’s been creeping up on us for a long while.

Click to expand...

I found it particularly chilling, yet it struck me as true and has stayed with me since I first read the interview. Music as an accessory to everything, but central to nothing. The result of having far too much music (or at least far too much access).

I do feel a certain exhaustion in new music... If Attali is right that music anticipates future worlds, then it seems that we are heading to a world of creative exhaustion but endless recombination, and not coincidentally increasingly strip-mining the fruits of the colonized: baile funk, reggaeton, kuduro, each seeming to flash in the pan that much faster. Maybe an old man's lament ("nothing gets me hard like it used to"), but fuck, I'm 25, so I hope that isn't the case.

And for some reason I keep thinking about how all the bars in my town play only the worst music of the 80s and 90s, almost as if on purpose -- crappy power ballads and butt-rock guaranteed not to make anyone feel cool/uncool, hip/unhip, threatened in any way, there purely to deaden the silence of the void.

Isn't Attali's final stage that where instead of listening to pre-recorded music we simply create our own, and that the fundamental means of engaging with it is via creation?

gek-opel said:

Isn't Attali's final stage that where instead of listening to pre-recorded music we simply create our own, and that the fundamental means of engaging with it is via creation?

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't buy the final stage though. He is still grounded in classical composition (the final stage is called "composition") when that's not how most people make or receive music. I really think the final stage is too utopian, flies in the face of a lot of trends in consumer capitalism -- when will we have the time to compose? I could see something along the lines of video games/computer programs that enable users to endlessly, effortlessly recombine and remix existing songs being popular (sort of like mashups but more corporately controlled -- and mashups were never that popular, in the U.S. at least) -- you could even require/"allow" people to buy licenses from major labels, make them expire, and so on.

Or it's possible that the exhaustion of the penultimate stage ("repetition" i.e. the commodity form) is felt and that it's steadily giving way to the atomised production/consumption he envisages, where everyone is a hot producer/in a band/etc, and also designs their own clothes, pimps their own rides, cooks their own meals, cuts and styles their own hair... wait, we DO have to work in the future don't we?

Several points to address here

swears said:

I dunno, posting on a forum or a blog comments box is hardly as exciting as exploring various little clubs and gigs and meeting people in the flesh, dressing up, socialising, etc...

Click to expand...

Yeah, I had two separate reactions there, not two parts of the same argument: 1.) That the forum discussion is an improvement over blog-to-blog hyper-link discussion; and 2.) That the internet is not killing the underground, but rather facilitating it at a purely local level. Upon reflection, the latter may be more true in North America than in Europe.

swears said:

Perhaps the lack of musical innovation nowadays (yeah, that old chestnut again, sorry) is the fact that people can so easily stay within their own little musical clique or milieu.

Click to expand...

I think this was always the case. I know several people who listen to nothing but classic rock. One guy in particular doesn't own a CD recorded before 1988; he owns nothing but re-issues and re-masters and has no interest in hearing anything new. To these people, music is just not that important in their lives. This guy, for example, is totally obsessed with comics and has little interest in anything else.

Gavin said:

And for some reason I keep thinking about how all the bars in my town play only the worst music of the 80s and 90s, almost as if on purpose -- crappy power ballads and butt-rock guaranteed not to make anyone feel cool/uncool, hip/unhip, threatened in any way, there purely to deaden the silence of the void.

Click to expand...

See above. In my experience most bars, as opposed to clubs, play music the drunks can sing along to.

gek-opel said:

Isn't Attali's final stage that where instead of listening to pre-recorded music we simply create our own, and that the fundamental means of engaging with it is via creation?

Click to expand...

Isn't that what happened in the jungle scene and what's now happening with grime and dubstep? Speaking personally, I started making music because people in the industry stopped making the music that I found interesting. I still buy records, but I'm much more picky than I used to be. Not because I'm bored, you understand, but more because only a very few are using sounds that I like.

I think we'll witness the entire life-cycle of social networks pretty soon. Myspace is going down the crapper, a microcosm of the internet -- choked by narcissistic teenagers' horrible wallpapers, pornbots, spam, too much advertising. I hate browsing it any more (maybe because I'm no longer trying to get laid off it), and I barely ever use it to check out new music (though maybe I should).

Facebook is going the same way: it's the only way to make money, expanding into everything. It preserved locality for a while by insisting on .edu email addresses, but now it's opening up the doors to anybody, which of course means we will all get half a dozen robo-sluts attempting to friend us every day.

It's interesting to think about these sites, especially in their local articulations, as a kind of public square in which members of a community can promote their events, share ideas, etc. Sort of Habermasian (esp. since REAL public space is basically gone), but the critique of Habermas applies: the "public" is still determined by power, by who has the most access/cred/etc.

Gavin said:

If Attali is right that music anticipates future worlds, then it seems that we are heading to a world of creative exhaustion but endless recombination, and not coincidentally increasingly strip-mining the fruits of the colonized: baile funk, reggaeton, kuduro, each seeming to flash in the pan that much faster.

Click to expand...

This is as far as i can see absolutely on point and totally off it at the same time. i note that there's a real weird and conflicting sense of capitalist cultural colonialism at the heart of the work of people like diplo, one that i'm massively uncomfortable with because it's, on the face of it saying, look at me, i'm wealthy and i can own culture from anywhere. i'm sick of hearing him described as some kind of intrepid explorer coz he's bough records in rio/baltimore/jamaica/wherever. it's not that fucking difficult. do some research, buy a plane ticket, take some money, act nice to people and they'll sell you stuff (obviously it's also better if you then proceed to sample these records, to 1) credit the original artists before they send for you 2) break them off a few bills out of common decency.
however, these scenes do not flash in the pan at all. just to outsiders. long after newyork/london/montreal/beriln hipsters stop fucking with batimore, with houston, with kingston, with rio those musics continue to live.
anyone who dips into them as an outsider is always that, a listener on the periphery of the real deal. no matter how much i love reggae or any of the above genres, i'm merely someone who is privileged enough to be able to engage with global music culture. i'm not part of it and i'm not a "global visionary".
the world is not the click of a mouse away for the majority of people. it's where they live, on their street corners. that's why people need to be respectful when they pick and choose from this massive grab-bag of cultures. what's throwaway and a week-long diversion to many of us is right at the centre of other people's lives, telling their stories in a way that nothing else can.
world music, for want of a better term needs us way less than we need it.
as sizzla said to robbo ranx on 1xtra during the homphobia debate: "i don't need the uk, i am jamaican and i can live and make the money i need right here." admittedly this isn't the best reason for him to have expressed such a sentiment, but that kind of statement really does say a lot.

stelfox said:

This is as far as i can see absolutely on point and totally off it at the same time. i note that there's a real weird colonialism at the heart of diplo's work, one that i'm massively uncomfortable with because it's, on the face of it saying, look at me, i'm wealthy and i can own culture from anywhere. however, these scsnes do not flas in the pan. long after diplo stops fucking with batimore, with houston, with kingston, with rio those musics continue to live. anyone who dips into them as an outsider is always that, a listener on the periphery of the real deal. no matter how much i love reggae or any of the above genres, i'm merely someone who is privileged enough to be able to engage with global music culture. the world is not the click of a mouse away for the majority of people it's where they live, on their street corners. that's why people need to be respectful when they pick and choose from this massive grab-bag of cultures. what's throwaway and a week-long diversion to many of us is right at the centre of other people's lives, telling their storiesin a way that nothing else can. world music, for want of a better term needs us way less than we need it. as sizzla said to robbo ranx on 1xtra during the homphobia debate: "i don't need the uk, i am jamaican and i can live and make the money i need right here."

Click to expand...

Sorry, maybe I should have put "flash in the pan" in scare quotes; I didn't mean to say that they actually WERE creatively exhausted, but that they are made to seem that way by the way they are promoted (and abandoned) by the press. I totally agree with you, esp. re: Diplo.

Any more? This is a really good thread - even better than the original interview IMO (and if someone disagrees with me, do go on!).

polz said:

i totally disagree. everybody is free to (mis)use any cultural form that exists.

Click to expand...

Are you a fan?

this brings me to the point of white guilt, which i feel in this argument. Black artists also use whatever they find useful, and i'm happy they do so without too much reverence

Click to expand...

There's a world of difference between the indigenization of globalized pop commodities (Bollywood incorporating funk) and those at the "center" of globalization using the exotic flavors of local scenes to elevate their dubious talents (Diplo stealing funk carioca for M.I.A.). The West dumps its pop into its colonial possessions, where it mutates into new forms that -- I agree with you -- are quite exciting. But reversed, we see white colonizers/tourists cherrypicking local sounds, abstracting them from their contexts for the pleasure of hipsters (i.e. hyperconsumers) that fancy themselves cosmopolitan, but don't give a shit about how those sounds came about. It's a lazy, superficial investment in the music which I don't think leads to anything good, although I confess that I like some M.I.A. and Diplo songs. (But do we have a RIGHT to enjoy whatever we please, or should some sort of ethical calculus come into it? Isn't music more interesting when you know more about it than whether you like it or not?)

and, another point, since it is possible to record music, people who arent in the incrowd, are also able to hear the music. I think it is ridiculous to call everybody who never saw the beatles perform and outsider to their music. This applies to "world music" just as much.

Click to expand...

Huge issue! Commodity reification destroying local scenes! Part of what kept Baltimore club going (keeps it going?) is that you can't just listen to a song. You have to listen to a mix, preferably in a huge sweaty club full of working people wilding out on the weekend (or so I hear, I've never been to B-more). As it morphs into a pop song structure (cf Young Leek - "Shake And Jiggle"), like screwed and chopped rapidly did to my amazement, the scene will change as the producers aim for the mass pop market instead of the specific local dance market.

The exciting part comes when new sounds are INCORPORATED into an existing social scene (this implies liveness), where producers make new sounds MAKE SENSE for a somewhat coherent group of people. Less interesting to me is when people IMITATE new sounds OR consciously mix disparate parts for the purpose of giving a DISPERSED consumer group (dreaded hipsters) a new exotic flavor. See the creation of Detroit techno (bougie black teens appropriating white euro disco and synthpop) vs. I dunno, any kind of "fusion" music.

So The Wicked West is two times guilty: it dumps it pop in the Third World, and later comes back to cherrypick local sounds, whereas the noble people over there only want to make exciting sounds, and are truely involved in their musics, they are authentic, and they arent just in it for the money or the fame. This is an insulting view for everybody. Everywhere you have real artists, businessmen, and real artists who are businessmen as well (often the most exciting) (And you have hipsters everywhere as well) Everybody (ab)uses influences, and often they use influences the wrong way because they dont understand them. And that is where new exciting sounds begin.

Click to expand...

I don't think the West is "guilty" for dumping sounds, but I think the process by which Western pop makes it to the rest of the world differs from how a lot of "world music" makes it to the west, and it's worth teasing out those differences. This isn't to single out individual artists/businessmen, but to look at the larger processes that they are a part of and which determine their work. The way the Rocky theme became a sample source of baile funk is different from how a popular baile funk beat was appropriated by an American DJ for a British rapper. I'm not sure one is more "authentic" than the other, but I have fewer ethical reservations about the former (although I guess Diplo paid DJ Marlboro eventually, right?). And I guess I'm really positing (not in any firm way, as I still turn this over in my head a lot) whether there should be an ethical consideration in listening. You seem to say no, I wonder what others think?

polz said:

Yes, everybody has that RIGHT. You like something the moment you hear it. Understanding where the music comes from can deepen the enjoyment, but when you start constructing you musical taste like you propose, you're not a music lover anymore, you're an ideologist.
I liked Konono (from Congo) the second i heared them, i was thrilled. The question whether i'm entitled to enjoy this never crossed my mind, and i'm glad it didn't

Click to expand...

You propose that enjoyment precedes ideology, and that the less thought that goes into this, the more authentic the enjoyment (you like Konono immediately, without reflection, a more authentic enjoyment than would accompany any thought). That's interesting, and I think a lot of people approach enjoyment this way, but I disagree that it is non-ideological. The prioritization of enjoyment over any ethical consideration IS ITSELF ideological; the injunction to ENJOY that in its purest, most authentic form becomes the highest virtue -- no reflection upon anything else should taint it. I think there is something to that "music hitting you immediately" moment, but don't you think that your tastes -- what hits you that way -- are a result of your beliefs, your ideology? Is it more ethical to "open ourselves up" to as many sounds as possible or should we attune ourselves to the economic processes that allow practically any sound we can imagine from anywhere in the world to reach us, and think of them critically? And if the latter, how should it effect our listening, our enjoyment?


I don't really like the last part of my post (and I'm more interested in the above), so I will cede those points to you. Although I will note that Mojo was profoundly ideological in his playlist programming -- he quite literally wanted to bridge Detroit's racial divide through music, not JUST entertain.

polz said:

i totally disagree. everybody is free to (mis)use any cultural form that exists. luckily most artists do, and this leads in my opininion to much really new refreshing sounds. For instance, remember the diwali riddim, remember john coltrane appropriating "my favorite things", ever heard bollywood scores with classic rock and funk themes.

this brings me to the point of white guilt, which i feel in this argument. Black artists also use whatever they find useful, and i'm happy they do so without too much reverence

and, another point, since it is possible to record music, people who arent in the incrowd, are also able to hear the music. I think it is ridiculous to call everybody who never saw the beatles perform and outsider to their music. This applies to "world music" just as much.

Click to expand...

the diwali is a really bad example to use as lenky is a jamican south asian and the influences of that riddim are absolutely part of his life and experience. it's nothing like the stuff i'm talking about. also, i'm not saying that i haven't really enjoyed things like the first favela on blast mix and a lot of the stuff the hollertronix people do. it's just a bit problematic sometimes, when issues of royalties, credits and the general perception of those responsible virtually discount the original artists and local/ethnic musics are plundered on a wider international stage without due recognition. props to MIA for getting Dave Kelly and South Rakas Crew remixes, respect to diplo for bringing DJ marlboro all over the place etc. that sort of thing is pretty cool as far as i'm concerned and it's not difficult to do if you're in the right position to make it happen. you also only have to look at people like DJ's Rupture and C, doing the same kind of thing but slightly differently, to see how truly nice and uncomplicated engagement with global music can be and how great and unexpected collisions and connections can be made. it's also easy to see black american producers as equally problematic. for example, plenty of hindi speakers thought erik sermon's react was a ridiculous tune because he didn't do a bit of research before sampling something. it's got nothing to do with white guilt and, to be honest, i think that throwing those kind of accusations around is a bit of a lame way to justify your own points. next you'll be saying "it's political correctness gone mad" or something.