blissblogger said:
been out of town on a story and missed the fascinating turn in this debate, some very elegant arguing going on here
yeah tim definitely raised the bar
doubt that i have anything essential to add
so i guess my concern is to figure out the areas of disagreement
(1) music versus culture versus pop image
i realize that k-punk detests phenomenology as willfully naive -- and i suspect that i'm about to put the wrong words into k-punk's mouth -- but k-punk seems to say that if we're going to be true to how we experience and relate to music, then we have to be popists of a certain kind
and this means avoiding the rockist reduction of the phenomenon to just the music
k-punk therefore advocates a twofold restoration of the original phenomenon
first, k-punk would have us take seriously the photographs, fashion statements, and interviews that we encounter with and alongside the music -- i.e., the pop image
k-punk said:
The thing to take from Popism is its breaking down of the rockist focus on the records or the perfomance alone: quite clearly, the enjoyment of Pop encompasses photographs, fashion, interviews.... Rockists insist that Pop is essentially music... But I would argue that Pop is in no sense 'music'
second, k-punk speaks of cultures & populations -- i assume that by the term "populations" k-punk has in mind the grime massive, the jungle massive, the punk rock massive, and so forth
though in speaking of populations isn't k-punk necessarily advocating a move to eppy's pop-2 & pop-3?
and yet the locus of pop image is pop-1 -- perhaps k-punk could clarify his meaning
and would blissblogger & woebot disagree w/ k-punk on either of these two points -- i.e., the importance of image and populations?
granted blissblogger does emphasize purely musical considerations, as when he says this --
blissblogger said:
and the persistence of auteurist concepts of intent, formal progression, expression (i've just interviewed a bunch of grime people and these ideas are very much alive and kicking)
but blissblogger is also the great pop-2 and pop-3 advocate -- though he calls himself a rockist
blissblogger takes the position that music that comes from a scene or belongs to a massive, i.e., music that has the active commitment of populations, is more powerful than music which does not -- all too conspicuous in music that comes from "nowhere" is this lack
therefore to be a rockist in the manner of blissblogger means to treat not only the music and musical considerations, but also the scenes and populations that constitute and belong to the total phenomenon --the massive which the music must win over, the scene which supercedes the distinction b/w producer and consumer
indeed for blissblogger it is the popist who cannot account for scenes and populations --
blissblogger said:
the general tenor of [the pop] way of relating to music tends to make inexplicable and slightly ludicrous all the kinds of music based around strenuousness, commitment, belief etc etc... i don't know how, within the pop mindset, you'd be able to account for the surprising persistence of ideas of commitment, community (if every community becomes herd-like, sheep-like, then the only alternative is the atomised individual pop consumer isolate), real-ness, autheniticty
but if i had to fish for points of disagreement b/w k-punk and blissblogger on this general area, they might be --
first, that blissblogger seems to favor music made by "real" or "authentic" members of the massive -- whereas k-punk seems to like music made by masters of pop artifice ("aristocrats"), not anonymous members of the massive
second, k-punk seems to take the images & fashion statements & photographs of discrete pop acts more seriously than does blissblogger -- and this might also be extended to how members of the massive dress -- though i think blissblogger has elsewhere argued that codes of dressing, ways of dancing, etc, are indicators of a scene's power and strength -- though this can get a bit tricky as there's no one-to-one correlation -- but certainly at the stage of the original phenomenon this is all integral, i.e., recall the opening pages of "generation ecstasy" where blissblogger discusses his first rave experience and how taken he was by gaunt adolescent boys and blissed out girls and their weird ways of dancing etc
moving on to the next issue
(2) the nature of false consciousness
k-punk treats popism as an ideology -- i.e., there is no such thing as the pop way of relating to music
popism for k-punk is prescriptive, not descriptive
now blissblogger would likely agree w/ k-punk's account of popism
though it might be said that the pop theory of music reception ultimately distorts actual reception, precisely b/c the theory is in fact prescriptive -- which is why blissblogger speaks of the pop mindset as though there actually were such a relation to music
but where i think blissblogger, woebot, and others here (including me) diverge from k-punk is in their doubts about the validity of their own consciousness
that is, b/c blissblogger & woebot valorize pop-2 and pop-3 music -- b/c they privilege the massive -- they cannot help but worry about their own status
woebot captures the predicament --
woebot said:
He is cautious about aspiring to belong to subcultural groups (like, er, Grime) on the basis that he's Middle Class, White and Old. But really no-one gives a toss and what's the alternative anyway? To accept something less-threatening and fake in some compromised quasi-ironic manner. To give up on the real because it underlines the uncomfortable reality of one's own situation?
k-punk is untroubled by his lack of membership in this or that particular scene or massive or population
nor does his taste seemed geared toward music with any such appellation (check his end of the year lists)
perhaps this is why k-punk calls himself a popist of a certain kind
and why blissblogger & woebot call themselves rockists
that is, perhaps the rockist values political (communal) membership more than the popist does?
that is, it's not enough for woebot to be a connoisseur of wines -- a part of him longs to be a peasant working the land, mashing the grapes, getting drunk at the village feast
and this is why blissblogger thinks it valid to argue thusly
blissblogger said:
. . . . paradoxically it seems that a pop-ist would have to argue that hip hop fans, metal fans, grime fans (not meaning bloggers but the actual, er, real ones out there in London) are actually deluded, gripped by false consciousness
and yet at the end of the day blissblogger and woebot know that they belong to no massive
nor do they wish to belong to the more cosmopolitan dance scene (even though they could easily claim membership)
ultimately what they're into is music pure and simple
therefore the rockist figure values music more than scene
and yet the rockist values both of these more than the popist does either
which leaves very unclear what the k-punk/skykicking popist values -- or is it simply the experience of the total phenomenon -- w/ no dissection of the phenomenon into ordered parts, i.e., music vs image vs scene -- but w/ such experience including the "raising" of the total phenomenon into thought
next issue
(3) differentiated experience versus formal articulation
tim writes --
tim f said:
The function of sensuous signs in art is to bring us face to face with the mass of differentiated intensities, whose aggregation and conglomeration allow us to conceive of stable concepts and meanings. When I say art brings us "face to face" with this stuff, I mean that it forces us to recognise the inescapably differential nature of these affects, rather than proceed straight to the concepts which we have lazily attached to them, and which we imagine to be standing behind them in a signifying relationship . . . . The function of art is to intensify our experience of difference – or, to put it another way, our awareness of the endless potential for differentiated experience
to which blissblogger has a ready reply --
we know what mia is trying to pass herself off as, and we don't buy it
blissblogger said:
if you've reached your mid-twenties and you've not formulated some basic ideas about the world you're not doing very well
and among the rules that blissblogger has discovered is the rule that the most powerful music comes from rooted scenes, populations, massives
and to this rule there are exceptions (to be really cheeky, at the moment kudu)
and yes, the massive is itself a construct
put aside the construct and we see that the massive is not undifferentiated -- some members of the massive are hardcore, others are peripheral, still others the leading edge -- and though we tend to imagine members of the massive as having a "real" relation to music, surely each member relates to the music & scene in his own way -- some make the music, others only support it on the dancefloor or by tuning in their radio or by buying 12" records -- and each member of the massive also has relationships with music that is outside the massive's zone of cultural production, e.g., music in the pop charts, classical music, jazz
so yeah, the massive is a construct
but it's also a reality
and i for one am sympathetic to blissblogger's position
by which i mean that i'm inclined to take seriously the articulation of "what is" into parts, types, classes, figures
but of course this is not the kind of question (form vs chaos, identity vs difference) that can be profitably discussed in a forum like this, i.e., it's an eternal issue of philosophy