RIP SOPHIE

[blissblogger]

its totally gross extreme surface music shorn of all sincerity

ah but this is what intrigued me about Sophie

there's this collision of extreme exteriority but then still a lingering belief in the idea of interiority

she used the word "authenticity" as a positive term in interviews

some people think the album title Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides is intended to be read phonetically - "I love every person's insides"

and there's the song on the album where she sings "I think your best side is your inside" - again playing on the contradiction between exteriority and interiority, the photographable pose and inner truth

"Faceshopping" is neither a celebration nor a critique of the culture of digi-glamour (digitally-doctored selfies presented to the world via social media etc).

It exists in the tension between the two contradictory longings - to be the theatrical superself and to reveal the real vulnerable pathetic self

in a lot of this kind of music there's a combo of superglistening surface sounds and abject messy sounds, again that seems like the sonic expression of that fraught exterior/interior space

dramatizing is the word, the music often feels like it's staged - you don't immerse yourself in it, you're watching the sound as this kind of ceremony or spectacle

 

[Murphy]

Faceshopping sounds as i imagine Tinder operates

 

[shiels]

Yes me too. When I say gross I don’t mean that i don’t like it

The point about interio/exterior brings to
Mind a mark / deleuze concept of machinic desire. There seems to be an acknowledgement that in the same way there is no outside there is no authentic inside either ie it is also produced.

And also it’s the reaction to all this that’s interesting it’s not real music it’s not really experimental it’s not real pop etc

 

[luka]

how do people react?

 

[shiels]

there was the RA bro bafflement and ridicule. The boring debate over use of a girls name before she came out as trans. There’s the feeling of squeamishness around the contrast of these princessy wannabe lyrics alongside mad electro and gabba kicks . And then all the fashion stuff. Shiny glitzy alien. uncomfortable music and an uncomfortable artist in many ways

 

[luka]

 

[shiels]

 

[shiels]

 

[Poet for Hire]

anutha bangin take looqa

 

[luka]

some people like the tunes some people dont like it but a lot of the arguments being made for it are clearly spurious and overinflated.
but its another one like Prince or Bowie or Morrisey or Boy George where the artist is very important for some kids/teens becasue they offer an out, or a permission slip, an alternative way to exist in the world, something that makes more sense than the usual sausage factory options.

and that obviously is great. but shiels is a middle aged geezer from Belfast who likes lager and fighting and wearing polo shirts.

 

[Corpsey]

It's an intriguing question for me - how much of what I enjoy when I enjoy music has its roots in an appreciation of it as a concept.

I'd like to feel that I'm anti-concept, that I enjoy music on a visceral, instinctual level, but that's obviously not entirely true.

You never just hear sounds (except perhaps when you're an infant, which is why you can enjoy the most simplistic, mindless music), you hear context.

I was thinking about Pulse X here. On some sort of musical level, Pulse X just works. It's a magic formula combo of rhythm and sound.

But it's also a track people love because it's bare bones, cheap-sounding, the polar opposite of smooth garage, its a stake in the ground, it sounds 'grime'-y.

It doesn't (or at least as consciously as SOPHIE) represent anything as lofty as 'interiority vs exteriority' but it's impossible for us, particularly as music nerds with extensive knowledge about the history of dance music, to hear it without hearing that it represents something.

 

[Corpsey]

But (here it comes) OTOH, I never knew much about the context SOPHIE existed in, I just heard tunes here and there ('Nothing More To Say', 'Bipp') and enjoyed them as shiny objects. I linked them in my head with the 'purple' dubstep sound, Rustie/Hudson Mohawk, etc. Turns out SOPHIE produced one of my favourite pop tunes ('Out of my head' by Charlie XCX).

So I would say that some of SOPHIE's music, at least, worked without that conceptual baggage being attached to it. It worked on a visceral level as music with catchy melodies, thrilling textures and rhythms, etc.

 

[entertainment]

It's an intriguing question for me - how much of what I enjoy when I enjoy music has its roots in an appreciation of it as a concept.

I'd like to feel that I'm anti-concept, that I enjoy music on a visceral, instinctual level, but that's obviously not entirely true.

You never just hear sounds (except perhaps when you're an infant, which is why you can enjoy the most simplistic, mindless music), you hear context.

I was thinking about Pulse X here. On some sort of musical level, Pulse X just works. It's a magic formula combo of rhythm and sound.

But it's also a track people love because it's bare bones, cheap-sounding, the polar opposite of smooth garage, its a stake in the ground, it sounds 'grime'-y.

It doesn't (or at least as consciously as SOPHIE) represent anything as lofty as 'interiority vs exteriority' but it's impossible for us, particularly as music nerds with extensive knowledge about the history of dance music, to hear it without hearing that it represents something.

That's why I think it's stupid to make the binary between "concept" appreciation and non. Or mind and body. Something like punk obviously gets its energy from its conceptual charge as well as its body charge because the body effect of it only makes sense in a chronology, or a dialectic, as a reaction to something external to itself, as a message, which is of course then conceptual. But it does that in a way that articulates a real space.

Making this binary also excuses all concept heavy, or post-conceptual, music of having no body effect, because the binary says that it shouldn't work on those terms anyway. Which is stupid. If the concept is good, it should show up in your body in some way. This effect can be enhanced by discourse but the music isn't bound by discourse per se.

 

[entertainment]

bit clumsy told probably, i'm at work

 

[DannyL]

.

and that obviously is great. but shiels is a middle aged geezer from Belfast who likes lager and fighting and wearing polo shirts.

When did polo shirts and fighting stop people liking the absolute opposite tendencies in music? I used to see fights out in Essex soundtracked by The Fatback Band and Ashford & Simpson.

 

[luka]

never has done. but i know shiels and i know when hes bullshitting.

 

[DannyL]

I guess a better way pf saying that would be why should a (contrived, largely false) idea of masculinity stop us enjoying or appreciating a particular music?

 

[luka]

I guess a better way pf saying that would be why should a (contrived, largely false) idea of masculinity stop us enjoying or appreciating a particular music?

it definitely shouldnt.

 

[Corpsey]

Although I'm sure the packaging effects how people hear the music (for some this means they'll be more receptive, for others less), the effect the music has on you when you listen to it will determine what you make of the packaging - is it just a conceptual gussying up of fundamentally unexciting music, or is it something which makes this music you find exciting even more exciting?

 

[DannyL]

So I would say that some of SOPHIE's music, at least, worked without that conceptual baggage being attached to it. It worked on a visceral level as music with catchy melodies, thrilling textures and rhythms, etc.

That was my reaction to "It's okay to cry" and that's in part due to what it's saying about masculinity.