Noah Baby Food
Well-known member
Christ. Can I have some "grime spam", please?
Noah Baby Food said:Christ. Can I have some "grime spam", please?
Shaun MGS said:You lot think too much about your tunes.
Nuff said.
Tim Finney said:"I love this piece of music but objectively speaking I shouldn't and therefore won't love it any longer"
I think this is a really key point. Essentially, what's the difference between a convincing argument that changes someones perception of a piece of music, and one that does not? I would say that in the latter case, it hasn't actually been argued successfully, if you are still able to enjoy the piece of music.Tim F said:So my point in the quote above was simply that nu-rockism demands something of its adherents that they should not be expected to fulfil: a setting aside of their visceral convictions for the sake of accepted conclusions as to [x] which do not necessarily have any connection with what the adherent themselves can actually perceive in [x].
Whereas the example I provided was a different one: if someone's argument actually makes you hear something differently, be open to the possibility of changing your mind in accordance with that. A fairly uncontroversial point.
joeschmo said:<i>...fidelity to the 'music alone', surely the very cornerstone of rockism?</i>
at this point i've read countless thousands of words on this popism/rockism thing, and I don't know how anyone could possibly consider fidelity to the music alone the very cornerstone of rockism. to my mind, that would be the essence of popism!
after all this time, if there isn't even agreement on what the basic opposition underlying the debate is, that could mean a couple of things
a) I'm stupid.
b) you're all talking past each other at an incomprehensible level of abstraction.
i'm going with b). these threads always remind me of that irvine welsh short story, "the two philosophers."
bipedaldave said:I think this is a really key point. Essentially, what's the difference between a convincing argument that changes someones perception of a piece of music, and one that does not? I would say that in the latter case, it hasn't actually been argued successfully, if you are still able to enjoy the piece of music.
I believe that's the nu-rockist (or whatever) idea, that you can't disconnect your perception of music from your conceptions of music. In other words, the situation described in Tim's quote that started this whole thread is not actually possible.
Yeah, I had thought about that, but I think the problem is that we're viewing enjoyment as some sort of all-or-nothing kind of proposition. Surely, once you've realized the politics of some song are objectionable, your enjoyment of it will decrease somewhat? Knowing you shouldn't enjoy it obviously decreases your enjoyment of it to some degree.k-punk said:This strikes me as quite bizarre, though. Surely Simon's examples are perfectly valid. You enjoy a dancehall track, find out its meaning is politically objectionable, and although you continue to enjoy it, you know you really shouldn't.
Tim F said:NB. I unintentionally (but intriguingly) called Mark "Marx" in my previous post. I hope he takes it as an accidental compliment!
k-punk said:Triumph of the Will - it's not that it was 'used for terrible ends', it's that it was MADE for terrible ends - surely only a crazed aesthete would argue that you can entirely separate the pleasure of watching it from what it is made for
infinite thought said:certainly not implying this separation is desirable - I think it's actually impossible - but not watching it at all because 'life's too short' is the wrong way of looking at it I think. All I'm saying is that an understanding of the way in which the fascist aesthetic actually functions is probably a good idea (as is working out the way racist ideology/misogyny/homophobia etc. work) - otherwise how are you going to know who your enemy is, and how best to defeat them?