[ldn] 'ardkore continuum event

[rouge's foam]

what are the grounds for rejecting the idea completley, from their points of view?

Joe Muggs began by criticising the notion of the 'thingness' of the nuum, saying that it wasn't a thing but a 'set of relations, a set of tendrils' (maybe not verbatim). His main problem, and I couldn't agree with him all the way here, was that the traditional nuum idea ignored a lot of music that was simply considered uncool - jazz, detroit techno, happy hardcore, more upbeat ravey stuff etc (surely a notion of what's cool goes a long way in constituting a musical tradition? but) he claimed that many of the figures involved in the music also had very un-nuum interests that are played down. During a later discussion on the role of value-judgments, Muggs piped up 'value-judgments or cool judgments'?

Dan Hancox's talk was an elaboration on his Generational Resentment piece really. His main problem was the imposition of a theoretical template that was formed in 1999 looking backwards and then projected forwards in a way that compromises perception. He emphasised the factor of dancability, and claimed that some of the pessimism about the state of UK hardcore was greatly unjustified, concluding with something along the lines that it was 'as good as ever'. He said the elephant in the room was that 'Reynolds is in New York and doesn't go to raves any more' (not verbatim), and during the talk he got into an exchange with k-punk over whether history had ended or not, which he concluded with 'well it's doing pretty well at the moment'.

Just saying, if anyone knows where the audio is online, or has access to the tapes - would they be able to put a link to them here?

 

[joe narcossist]

Just saying, if anyone knows where the audio is online, or has access to the tapes - would they be able to put a link to them here?

x2, would be very interested in hearing what went on if it's possible.

 

[mos dan]

Joe Muggs began by criticising the notion of the 'thingness' of the nuum, saying that it wasn't a thing but a 'set of relations, a set of tendrils' (maybe not verbatim). His main problem, and I couldn't agree with him all the way here, was that the traditional nuum idea ignored a lot of music that was simply considered uncool - jazz, detroit techno, happy hardcore, more upbeat ravey stuff etc (surely a notion of what's cool goes a long way in constituting a musical tradition? but) he claimed that many of the figures involved in the music also had very un-nuum interests that are played down. During a later discussion on the role of value-judgments, Muggs piped up 'value-judgments or cool judgments'?

Dan Hancox's talk was an elaboration on his Generational Resentment piece really. His main problem was the imposition of a theoretical template that was formed in 1999 looking backwards and then projected forwards in a way that compromises perception. He emphasised the factor of dancability, and claimed that some of the pessimism about the state of UK hardcore was greatly unjustified, concluding with something along the lines that it was 'as good as ever'. He said the elephant in the room was that 'Reynolds is in New York and doesn't go to raves any more' (not verbatim), and during the talk he got into an exchange with k-punk over whether history had ended or not, which he concluded with 'well it's doing pretty well at the moment'.

this was one of the more enjoyable interchanges with mark, i'd forgotten about that, cheers for the write-up. i was in the middle of trying to read this:

In our historically-conscious, secular times, the final year of a decade still seems to make people nervous. Frances Fukuyama announced the end of history in 1989, the millennium bug was due to put us back to the stone age in 1999, and now apparently we have exhausted avenues of progress in electronic music in 2009. Well history didn’t end after 1989, aeroplanes didn’t fall from the sky after 1999, and dare I suggest that, in 2009, mid-range pitchbent-synths are not the end of music.

except that i got as far as 'history didn't end after 1989' and mark shouted out 'but it did!!' and we proceeded to get a little side-tracked lol

 

[mos dan]

audio isn't up or shared anywhere yet, they're still deciding what to do with it. you'll hear about it if it goes up don't worry

 

[Tentative Andy]

The fallout from the seminar continues to spread:
http://blissout.blogspot.com/2009/05/nuum-seminar-initial-reflections.html

It just spread a bit deeper:
http://energyflashbysimonreynolds.blogspot.com/2009/05/nuum-and-its-discontents-1-centripetal.html

 

[john eden]

deeper still
http://melissabradshaw.net/?p=254

 

[nomos]

^^ breath of fresh air that piece

 

[luka]

really? i thought it was an embaressement.

 

[droid]

Yeah, I'm kinda with Luka on this. Personal attacks and general anti-theory followed by a enthusiastic big-up for Kode/Kodwo's ideas (which i have found to be even more abstract and 'theoretical' than Reynolds/K-Punk).

Quite confusing really.

 

[slackk]

All these theories/dismissals etc just depress me really.

 

[nomos]

She assumes motives for SR, and I'm not sure what was happening with the Schreber part. If that was directed at k-punk, it was unfair.

But the piece has a sense of humour, for one. More importantly, it points to the arrogance that's infected the debate and repeatedly undermined SR and k-punk's positions - i.e. dismissing people as anti-theory (and attacking their age, tastes, motives) for disagreeing with the premise of the "nuum," and dismissing broad cultural developments (e.g. dubstep, funky) as some equivalent of false consciousness ("kids these days...") when the real issue seems to be the critic's tastes and concern for preserving a model.

I don't see how the piece itself is anti-theory, especially, as droid points out, it takes up Goodman and Eshun's argument. That's not self-contradictory. It's not about how abstract or 'theoretical' a theory is, it's about whether it does anything productive, which she seems to feel theirs does.

The piece also highlights the general blokeishness of this whole thing, something that most participants in the debate have not acknowledged. It's been, for the most part, an argument between men about a model (generally) unconcerned with women, except when it celebrates a brief, contained outburst of "feminine pressure" which is itself (as described thus far) a heteronormative condition, and no tangible threat to the structures that run tings. (k-punk acknowledged as much when i pointed this out on the original burial thread.)

So fair play to Melissa. She's sketched the defence mechanisms of a homosocial power-knowledge network and (i think only half tongue in cheek) used soca aerobics to demonstrate how artificially limited in scope so much music theorizing is.*

* this is not an "anti-theory" statement. it's a call for more, better theory. more imaginative, more abstract, more radically empirical

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

well with luka & droid, thought it was pretty shite (not that a lot of other writing on the subject - including on dissensus - hasn't also been shite). the soca areobics bit was clever but I mean it's like shooting fish in a barrel isn't it to point out the absurdity of dance music criticism.

She assumes motives for SR

ridiculous ones which he's endlessly refuted. Harold Bloom, FFS.

More importantly, it points to the arrogance that's infected the debate and repeatedly undermined SR and k-punk's positions...

none of those are exactly novel observations, or ones of which debaters on either side are unaware. & that taste/age/motives taking the place of arguing points cuts both ways I reckon.

The piece also highlights the general blokeishness of this whole thing, something that most participants in the debate have not acknowledged.

true, tho I dunno people as people are unaware of that. also unfortunately blokeishness is obv a much larger underlying problem than just in this one debate. like, subcultures like this are inherently blokeish - easier for men to accrue subcultural capital & so on - so debates about them are going to be rife with blokeishness. the heteronormative bit re: "feminine pressure" vs. masculine dark/aggro/etc. is a point well taken if not the first time I've seen it made, incl. by both you & ripley. so much as I'm aware no one's actually gone beyond that (valid) criticism & come up with an alternate reading tho.

 

[slackk]

The biggest problem I have with any of this (and I'm not interested in quoting Zappa because that's not what I'm trying to say) is that the initial theory is something that effectively places everyone in this linear path that doesn't allow for other influence or music within it. It's easy to sit there and attempt to say "And hardcore begat jungle whose side rooms begat UK DJs spinning US Garage pitched up that begat UK Garage whose chilly winters took it dark blah blah blah" but that presents an image of UK music which disregards anything else but itself.

I don't know if I'm missing something (I never actually read Energy Flash and Blissblog & it's attachments are crushingly dull) but it seems to me that it betrays the musicians and the music itself by defining them as part of this process. If I listen to Jungle I hear dub, "hip-hop," soul, all kinds. If I listen to grime evolve from garage pirate radio, I hear Timbaland more than I hear a clinical process. 2001 times Mak10 & Jammer were dropping sped up rap as part of their sets and you can't say that this isn't an influence. Even our "garage" scene stems in part from the largely black crowd Funky House scene that preceded it, and I don't hear anyone bring it up.

What about Acid House and Shoom or Quadrant Park or the Hacienda or what about the fast rap scene that ran alongside hardcore and led to people like Demon Boyz MCing on Jungle that spread over onto the Garage sets that eventually surpassed it.

I think the worst part of any of this for me was the idea that Bassline suddenly warranted conclusion by Mr Reynolds and his Acolytes, because it sounded a bit like garage? That scene sprung up in the hard-house mainstays around the country and it as much a jump off from Scouse House/Wigan Pier & Tidy Trax/Nukleus/Trade as it is anything to do with London's definition of garage and this construct's due dilligence to the scene in the capital.

But it seems to me that for the most part the people who refute the idea of the continuum only serve to create abstract, sniping references to the "believers" if you will, as opposed to simply breaking it down into clear definite reasons.

I've got a theory why your theory isn't a valid theory and my theory is to present it obliquely so there.

Everything's so fucking clinical and it's just depressing. I'm not sending for all of you and I don't even think this made that much sense.

My problem is simply that it ignores influences, parallels and the very fact that people inherit musical taste from that which precedes them to fit everything into a linear path. And rather than focusing on the things that are wrong with that, well I don't know what people are doing

 

[john eden]

I like Melissa's piece because it focuses on social aspects of music and London which are often completely absent from recent discussions about the 'nuum.

That's it really. I like a good verbal ruck as much as the next guy, but like Nomos said, Mel's piece was a breath of fresh air compared to a lot of the recent discussion on this, my meagre contributions included.

I've also got no problem with her dissing K-Punk and Reynolds but liking Kodwo and K9. I just think the latter two present their take on all this in a way which is much more poetic and engaging. That's just my opinion/personal taste tho.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

@slackk

no offense, but you're putting forth this asburd oversimplification of something that by you're own admission you've never read. if you read the stuff on jungle it's full of references to soul (the rare groove scene, Soul II Soul, etc.), hip hop, dub, 70s fusion jazz, god knows what all else. the prime-era UKG pieces are chock-full of references to Timbaland. SR practically slobs dudes knob yearly all thru the late 90s into the early 00s. that was actually where I picked up the idea that UKG had anything to with Timba & southern US hip hop back when I was first getting into Dizzee & So Solid & such (like 3 yrs after the fact).

not that there's not plenty of faults - which people are engaged in duly hashing out - but I'm not really sure what your point is, if any. the point isn't that there is only one linear path to which everything must adhere. it's that this is a description of one particular path.

 

[slackk]

@slackk

no offense, but you're putting forth this asburd oversimplification of something that by you're own admission you've never read. if you read the stuff on jungle it's full of references to soul (the rare groove scene, Soul II Soul, etc.), hip hop, dub, 70s fusion jazz, god knows what all else. the prime-era UKG pieces are chock-full of references to Timbaland. SR practically slobs dudes knob yearly all thru the late 90s into the early 00s. that was actually where I picked up the idea that UKG had anything to with Timba & southern US hip hop back when I was first getting into Dizzee & So Solid & such (like 3 yrs after the fact).

not that there's not plenty of faults - which people are engaged in duly hashing out - but I'm not really sure what your point is, if any. the point isn't that there is only one linear path to which everything must adhere. it's that this is a description of one particular path.

yeah i just started typing i'm bored i work

 

[Benny Bunter]

I've been trying to keep up with all this debate and it has been very interesting, but I still cannot see what any sane person can find to disagree with what Reynolds has been saying. Are people still pissed off with him for rejecting Grime? Or that he doesn't really like Funky? Who really gives a shit what his personal tastes are?

I think he's mapped out his argument (and recent counter-arguments on his blog) with remarkable clarity. I don't think he'll ever be beaten on this tbh

 

[slackk]

Actually no, fuck it.

I'm slightly incoherent in what I said but the point that I'm making is that the concept of the London Hardcore Continuum provides this "path" that, though it exists, takes in too many elements to be truly represented as a existing path, for me. Music, in terms of what Simon is trying to represent here- and in particular London's ethnic communities (which is the largest factor in any of the city's underground music really)- takes on too many factors and elements to really construct any type of narrative within it.

 

[Tentative Andy]

I've been trying to keep up with all this debate and it has been very interesting, but I still cannot see what any sane person can find to disagree with what Reynolds has been saying. Are people still pissed off with him for rejecting Grime? Or that he doesn't really like Funky? Who really gives a shit what his personal tastes are?

Weeellll, of course everyone is entitled to their own tastes, but if the person is a music critic who spends a lot of time writing about their taste, bigging up what they like and slating what they don't (and Reynolds seems to take this side of things pretty seriously with his feeling/not feeling, faves/unfaves etc), and then when you take into account the fact that this has at least some influence on forming the tastes of those who read them, on how they allocate their time and money in relation to music, then it does become a little frustrating when they seem consistently not to be into what you're into.
The frustration becomes greater and more justified when you take into account not just differing tastes but uninformed, poorly researched and argued, inexplicably snide and smug writing used to express those tastes is - and again, esp when this is all coming from a supposedly trained and respected professional who makes his money through this kind of writing.
I think that's really whatever problem I have with Reynolds ammounts to (and it would be a similar story with Fisher/k-punk, although there are also aspects of the wider philosophy informing his writing that I have problems with). I think the continuum theory broadly makes sense, esp when Reynolds clearly defines it as he has done of late. Yeah, there are points of contention and grey areas that need to be filled in, and hopefully the current debate will help resolve these, but in general it makes a lot of sense. My frustration stems from the fact that R's writing about recent UK music genres which clearly have a lot to with the nuum theory has become increasingly irrelevant and unhelpful.
Funky, dubstep, 'wonky', grime: whilst I wouldn't want to claim that we're living in some musical golden age, I'm certainly more excited about current music than I have been in quite a while, and at the centre of what I'm getting excited about is forward-thinking UK electronic music which relates in some way to a mixed urban audience - which is what the 'nuum is supposed to be all about, right? Yet R increasingly seems to slate it all, for reasons that often don't seem to add up. I think the writers I find most useful and interesting right now are the ones such as Blackdown, dan, Tim F and gek who are attempting to make sense of the new music as it develops. Of course, the best thing to do if you're dissatisfied with the coverage is to do something yourself, which is what I'm trying to achieve with my blog and with my (increasingly frequent and long-winded!) posts on here.

Anyway, enough rambling for now.

 

[Tentative Andy]

I should also note in passing that I'm thoroughly sick of cynicism, snarkiness and 'my generation is better than yours' in-fighting. But again, the best response is to do something about it.