Dissensus Best of 2011 Discussion

woops said:

What I think is odd about hauntology is that it is so so informed by academic critical theory. (One minute there was no blogodrome, the next there were dozens of people who'd read all the books hauntedly posting) That's the wrong way round in my opinion. If you're an artist you should pay no attention to theorising. Theorising can then do its work. I'm sure this is another old-fashioned view.

Click to expand...

It's impossible if you know something about some philosophy or theory - or anything - to not pay attention to it within your work, when you're working. Everything informs everything else, and especially if you're working on a long piece, your brain inevitably comes up with 'reasons' for what it's doing. To read theory and then try and directly practise that in another medium is another matter though.

shabazz is way better than anti pop.... easily one of the best rap albums of last year. the bass is deep on there too (even if he says he doesnt know about dubstep).

rubberdingyrapids said:

shabazz is way better than anti pop.... easily one of the best rap albums of last year. the bass is deep on there too (even if he says he doesnt know about dubstep).

Click to expand...

I like the Shabazz Palaces album but I like Antipop way more. He's a bit sprawling whereas they're very punchy and precise. In any case, I'm glad there's still someone out there doing that stuff.

woops said:

That's the wrong way round in my opinion. If you're an artist you should pay no attention to theorising. Theorising can then do its work.

Click to expand...

mistersloane said:

It's impossible if you know something about some philosophy or theory - or anything - to not pay attention to it within your work, when you're working. Everything informs everything else

Click to expand...

I think the idea that art comes first & theory comes after is sadly misguided. Everyone who makes music has their own intellectual schema which they draw on in conceiving/constructing/rationalising it to themselves - before they even open their mouth to anyone else. Then it's just about how forthcoming you choose to be

SecondLine said:

I think the idea that art comes first & theory comes after is sadly misguided. Everyone who makes music has their own intellectual schema which they draw on in conceiving/constructing/rationalising it to themselves - before they even open their mouth to anyone else. Then it's just about how forthcoming you choose to be

Click to expand...

Also, some of my favourite music is exciting precisely because it sounds like it's straining under the weight of its own theory - Gastr Del Sol, Oval and Scritti Politti spring to mind.

SecondLine said:

I think the idea that art comes first & theory comes after is sadly misguided. Everyone who makes music has their own intellectual schema which they draw on in conceiving/constructing/rationalising it to themselves - before they even open their mouth to anyone else. Then it's just about how forthcoming you choose to be

Click to expand...

Maybe, who knows how different people work. Even if you're reading theory when you have an idea it's still the idea that spawns the rest of the theorising though. If you consider that idea 'art' then I think you might be wrong, if you consider the work that goes into a piece of work that is then produced 'art', then you might be right, but it's very different for everyone.

SecondLine said:

Everyone who makes music has their own intellectual schema which they draw on in conceiving/constructing/rationalising it to themselves - before they even open their mouth to anyone else. Then it's just about how forthcoming you choose to be

Click to expand...

I'm not convinced. Seems like you're assuming that all artists have some degree of control over both their process and their product. I'd wager a laaaarge % of artists - including some rather good ones - are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Especially in dance music.

Nothing wrong with that, of course.

MatthewH said:

I'd wager a laaaarge % of artists - including some rather good ones - are just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Especially in dance music.

Click to expand...

yeah but the fact that they deem some things to 'stick' rather than others is the product of the application of a certain set of criteria, whether articulated or not. What I'm saying is theory is indivisible from practice at the most basic level. Artists who claim that concepts are bullshit and it's 'all about the music' are missing the point that music wouldn't exist unless we all agreed on a set of mutually confirming concepts regarding what it actually is. And that's before you get stuck into the higher order constructs which constitute a particular style or whatever. I mean how can you say a certain piece of music is 'sad', for example, without presupposing a whole (un-articulated) theoretical framework about the links between music and emotion.

Clearly when it comes to writing about music, theory can seem more or less tenuously linked to it depending on how committed the writer is to shoehorning in that Bordieu quote or whatever. But I guess my point is that when it's done well, 'theory' - in the sense of drawing on continental philosophy or something - isn't an afterthought but more simply is trying to get at an understanding of the music. It's just one of a million ways of doing that.

phew ok, thread hijack, sorry.

gremino said:

yeah they are more of a Swamp81-thing, which is part of bass/post-dubstep, but still it's own thing.

Click to expand...

belated response here...yeah, you're right. maybe these are more what you're talking about, pretty chill but always liked' em:

the ILX best of list is pretty great

i dont get the negative backlash against Rebecka Black. she should have at least had a top 10 spot. everyones just jumping on the hate wagon after her snl performance

SecondLine said:

phew ok, thread hijack, sorry.

Click to expand...

TO CUBA!!!

SecondLine said:

I think the idea that art comes first & theory comes after is sadly misguided. Everyone who makes music has their own intellectual schema

Click to expand...

Well intellectual schema != critical theory

SecondLine said:

Clearly when it comes to writing about music, theory can seem more or less tenuously linked to it depending on how committed the writer is to shoehorning in that Bordieu quote or whatever. But I guess my point is that when it's done well, 'theory' - in the sense of drawing on continental philosophy or something - isn't an afterthought but more simply is trying to get at an understanding of the music. It's just one of a million ways of doing that.

Click to expand...

This supports what I'm saying though, by all means theorise 'to get at an understanding of the music', but I don't think it's useful in making that music.

Carsten Nicolai in FACT saying 'Music can speak for itself, and that’s the great power of music. I don’t want to steal that aspect of it away by putting concept over it.' Yes it's a cheesy quote, but. I think works > interpretations because the work contains all the interpretations and more besides.

You can differentiate between theorizing as part of creating and theorizing as part of listening.

i think its a vital part of creating, - and going deeper into conceptual territory is so often rewarded by better end results. But that doesn't at all mean it needs to be a vital part of appreciating the work, in any way. The thematic intentions can be wholly private to the artist, and only mentioned as part of a description of creative process rather than instructions on how to listen.

Of course, the work might have a specific set of translation instructions, but I agree with Carsten that the stronger works can unlock themselves, just by listening.