things that seem like they should be good but aren't

[padraig (u.s.)]

labels or genre names can be suffocating and problematic

this thread is following on from me trying to think about organization of information in the sideways not forwards thread

the epistemology of genre construction and maintenance

of course any name is problematic in the sense of its artificial fixation, in both a temporal and physical sense

i.e. a genre name codifies something and doing so fixes it in place, artificially marks out what it is and isn't

in the same way that writing down a religion's tenets turns its beliefs into fixed dogma

at some point in time a number of producers or artists exist along similar creative wavelengths

this coalesces enough to be noticed - the wot do u call it moment, usually a/the creative peak

someone names it to attempt to describe what is happening; what was once malleable begins the process of ossifying into fixed formulas

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I usually roll my eyes when I hear producers etc complaining about genrefication

and I understand their desire not to be boxed in, corralled into ossified formulas

but at the same time we have to organize information somehow

it's easy to say "all those are just labels, we know that music is music"

but in reality with music as with anything, there can't just be one large amorphous mass

I do also think there is an inherent power, or at least a potential power, in genre

i.e. early 80s hardcore punk - virtually all its power resides in its core sound. you may like that sound, you may not, but either way that is its gut punch power.

that's a case where the genre restrictions - what a thing is and isn't - are very narrow, and I think there may be a correspondence between width and power

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

which is I think what I was trying to get at talking about the zone of fruitless eclecticism, that dilution of power

it is possible to pull off eclecticism and still be "good"

Can is a prime example. Björk would (for me) be another.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I guess I'm interested in the semantic (semiotic?) and real power of labels

pre-naming there exists some kind of protean mass of creative action

the relation between naming a thing and the way in which information and creative output reorganize themselves around that name

in this thread for example, some things definitely seem like a case where heightened expectations are related to misplaced name

for example, psytrance - the words "psychedelic" and "trance" together, in relation to music? sounds like it should be amazing

in reality, of course, the absolute worse, possibly even worse than Ferry Corsten etc arena trance

but if it was called "cybergoth goggles rave" or whatever, you'd be like oh yeah, it makes sense this is trash

 

[shiels]

Anything with great marketing behind it isn’t it, anything that’s self consciously innovative, anything that’s a bit too certain about what it is and what it’s for

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Tried to have a go at this with trip hop above

so I see, and I think your diagnosis is pretty sound

distance from social context is an interesting look

I don't know if it holds as a universal tho

perhaps the more self-conscious it is, the more distance from social context matters?

i.e. black metal aesthetically (and eventually philosophically) springs from Scandinavian teenagers taking the shock rock of Venom etc by graduating degrees of seriousness

but with a complete lack of self-awareness of the inherent absurdity in that

whereas something like drill n bass was completely self-aware of its social distance from jungle proper

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

when a genre is named by a single person, we wouldn't say that that person created that genre

for example, blissblogger didn't create post-rock, but by coining it he began the process of hardening it into specific conventions

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't think that limitations on creativity are bad; in fact they're often the opposite, as they force people to find creative workarounds

i.e. the repurposing of technology, from Link Wray poking holes in his speakers with a pencil, to beat juggling on turntables, to the use of the TB-303 in acid

so there's a power in the restrictions, or rules, of genre and one of the ways to access that power is by knowing when/how to break them

all the big free jazz guys knew the rules of jazz proper intimately, and broke them very deliberately. there is a power in that.

which is also most "IDM" (speaking broadly) fails for me. there are no true conventions, no rules to choose to follow or break. just endless whatever.

 

[shiels]

there’s plenty of fancy sounding puffed up conceptual stuff that might get hype for a while but collapses in a short time because it wasn’t born out of rich and resonant social contexts that would imbue with weight and relationships

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

like, it should be no surprise that Can included one of the best jazz drummers in Europe, and two classically trained musicians

they knew various sets of rules, and were among the best ever at intuiting when best to follow, bend, or break them

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

collapses in a short time because it wasn’t born out of rich and resonant social contexts that would imbue with weight and relationships

yeah that's basically what we were talking about in the sideways not forward thread

 

[shiels]

Yeah and your point above is what I was getting at with the ‘container’ chat on the birthing the future thread. There needs to be a tangible social or technological holding mechanism for all the energy to flow through

 

[shiels]

Also I dunno if you noticed but your “no there there” comment on that thread made me have a nervous breakdown on the dematerialisation thread and you didn’t even acknowledge it you selfish prick!!

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

sorry, I didn't notice that, no

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I'm obviously borrowing it from Gertrude Stein, tho applying it in a different (tho related I think) sense than she meant

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

that breakdown is - in an existential sense - what Camus would refer to as definitive awakening

the realization of no inherent meaning, no truly fixed point, only the certainty of death at some unknowable future point

the "here" or "there" we create and perceive is always an artificial one. that's more readily apparent in art because of its inherent artificiality.

which I think is probably the reason I am pursuing this line of inquiry into the relation between creativity and labeling

i.e. the genre becomes the hyperreal

(b4 anyone says it, I am fully aware that in my advancing age I have turned into an irritating college sophomore who just took his 2nd philosophy course)

 

[shiels]

"For the name of a man is a numbing blow from which he never recovers."

 

[shiels]

Luke is no doubt right to say that 'anyone who thinks the lack of a name is going to spell the death of the music is crazy anyway' (see woebot comments); yet that isn't to say that the lack of a name doesn't reflect a certain crisis in the scene. Crisis has a positive sense: lack of resolution means that a scene is still germinal, still unsure of exactly what it is, still in a state of becoming - not 'branded', in any sense of the term. Yet (contra Woebot) I would suggest that perpetual avoidance of auto-branding is damaging for a scene. Simon MUST be right that the lack of a name is holding the scene back.

'I guess the real issue at stake is that magazines and the cross-over crew don't just need a name, a handle, they need a NEW name,' Matt writes. 'It's packaging and advertising isn't it, a NEW product is needed to stock on the shelves.' But the product IS new, and perversely refusing to i-d it in some spirit of anti-media lockdown is like flat-earth folkies resisting electricity. There is a difference in being named BY the media and being named FOR the media.

Taking a step back, there are two interesting things about genre names.

1) They involve a COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS. An individual may come up with a name, but its acceptance amongst a scene is a 'decision' taken collectively, not, needless to say, by committees debating round a table, but by the unconscious desire of the Massive. Only if a name resonates with this unconscious collectivity will it stick. It's like a chemical reaction.

2) Naming is not a neutral act of referring. Naming produces surplus value, something that wasn't already there in the first place. 'Jungle' is a classic example of this: the name didn't just describe a style, it provided an instant mythology. There's a lack of will to myth in falling back on 'garage' (which IMO was never a great name any way).

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/001576.html

 

[droid]

non-JA/UK reggae makes sense, tho I think it might be restated to say all reggae made without Jamaican involvement of some kind

Loads of good reggae and dancehall has come out of Germany, France, and the Nordics, especially digi style.

 

[thirdform]

for example, psytrance - the words "psychedelic" and "trance" together, in relation to music? sounds like it should be amazing

in reality, of course, the absolute worse, possibly even worse than Ferry Corsten etc arena trance

not possibly, definitively worse. fucking IDF fascist music for people who spend their days massacring innocent civilians. regardless of your views on the significant role antisemitism played in fuelling the worst atrocities of world war II, europe can't just go offloading its traumas onto anyone it sees fit, especially when some people have the cheek to accuse the muslim world of adhering to a 1400 year old holy book. it's all made by yuppies and public school Etonian twats in the UK. of course. and the psychedelic experience is airbrushed, codified.