i think that somehow k-punk's point regarding the difference b/w "populations" and "communities" has gotten lost somewhere along the way
this is what k-punk said --
k-punk said:
When Pop has been powerful, it has PRODUCED populations, not 'represented' already-existing organic communities...
so tim f seems to me to miss the point when he remarks as follows --
tim f said:
A person who wished to persevere with the real/imagined distinction might jump in here and say, "yes, but, surely a style of music such as grime is only trying to interpellate a certain type of person as a potential member of its community - a person who fits the bill in terms of the following social and cultural categories..."
that is, to the extent that the grime scene is populated only by a "certain type of person," i.e., a person "belonging to a certain set of racial/cultural/socio-economic categories," then grime fails as pop
or to the extent that kylie is celebrated and appropriated only by gay men, kylie fails as pop
again, powerful pop produces populations that do not already exist in the "real world"
as for whether all music scenes are merely imagined, such that it is false to distinguish b/w the massive (i.e., the "real" or hardcore constituency -- whose members may or may not correspond w/ already existing organic communities) and fans w/ a more attenuated relationship with the music, i think that everything depends on whether you'd stake a claim or cede ownership
(and yeah i've read benedict andersen's "imagined communities" -- so fine, all communities are imagined -- but knowing this establishes nothing, b/c the community has its basis in shared ways of relating to the music -- and these folk ways are circulated with the music -- but the circulation of these folk ways resists easy description, and the folk ways are not uniformly adopted or anywhere near as compelling in their grip as the music itself ---- I CAN'T DEAL W/ ThiS aT the MOmENT, way too tricky)
and by "staking a claim" i mean something like you'd be willing to die to validate the claim -- not literally, but figuratively
and along w/ staking the claim comes the right to exclude others -- i.e., it's your property, not someone else's property
now with pop-1 music there's very little staking of claims b/c the music at issue is made by discrete artists standing apart from any one scene -- so while lots of gay men may like kylie, no one would acknowledge the validity of the claim were gay men to lay exclusive claim to kylie
(to the extent that gay men make exclusive claim to house music, the claim meets w/ considerable deference, if not outright acknowledgement)
but with grime or punk rock or rave music or any kind of scene-based music, the massive will deny the legitimacy of other people's claim or relationship to the music
they might be glad that you like their music, happy that their scene is getting attention -- but should you claim that your relationship to or understanding of the music is just as valid or equal to theirs, they'll seek to establish their priority
and should you try to diffuse the matter by saying that the massivo's relation and some other person's relation are simply not commensurate -- the massivo will opt for conflict and assert his rank
again i make these points figuratively, not literally
so the massive shares ways of relating to the music
the massive consists of people who join together at clubs or parties or raves or shows to hear the music -- so in relating to the music they relate to each other -- indeed were it not for their shared interest in the music they likely would have no common dealings
and it matters that these gatherings are in the flesh, direct, unmediated -- they are the people on the ground, making the scene happen
and then there are codes that the massive develops for how to dress, how to dance, etc -- and these all relate, ultimately, to the music -- i.e., they relate to the music by affiliating with each other, marking themselves off as members of the same tribe
and then too there are the codes of taste -- i.e., members of the massive will have by and large the same assessment of works produced from out of their scene, i.e., some tracks widely thought wicked, other tracks widely dismissed as boring or whatever
of course there's considerable diversity among members of any given massive on all such counts -- and yet they conceive of themselves and recognize others as members of the massive based upon such factors
they have a common language, common understandings
and they'll exclude to one extent or another anyone whom they do not deem a true member
in short it's all very political