Reynolds' Pazz & Jopp essay

[Guybrush]

guybrush: when I use the term hipster in a non-music context, I'm usually referring to how someone dresses/looks (i.e. vaguely williamsburg brooklyn circa 2003 ).

When I use it w/r/t music, I usually mean something like early adopter, or up on the latest cool music, or something like that.

I used it with different meanings in different contexts before, too, but the lack of common agreement over what it means is starting to bother me (especially since even magazines over here have started using it). I hate wrongly being labelled a hipster, too: I’m ‘hip’ goddamit!

 

[soundslike1981]

The western tonal system is still pretty deeply embedded in our brainframes. You're not going to get the average person to think Stockhausen is musical. We westerners still love melodies, harmonies, resolution, linear musical narrative.

Is James Brown still the most popular artist to dissolve a lot of that, or at least minimise the significance of traditional elements, down to the core of the beat?

 

[soundslike1981]

Its the village voice's yearly critics poll. Its irrelevant really, what was interesting were the tangents suggeted (somewhat healf-heartedly) in Reynolds' piece.


When I said... "He also presumes that the pop-picks before weren't chosen on pop-positive rockist grounds of progressiveness, sonic ingenuity, auteurism (ie all the Timba-love) etc etc, rather than the pure popist position he imagines being corroded by dubstep, metal and noise."I'm getting at the distinction between pop-positive rockists (as I think Reynolds' himself is) and pure-popists-- (ie those after a disposable fancy to entertain them now, with zero reference to who produced the track, or any questions of authenticity beyond immediate instantaneous pleasure). If the former is the reasoning why "hipsters" listened to timbaland or whoever before, then the same reason lies behind why they now listen to metal or dubstep or whatever- that they were pop-positive rockists, not real popists. As soon as you add a degree of self-awareness and need for context, pure popism is impossible, in my view...

So it's not possible for a "real" (authentic?) popist to be a music critic, or even to pontificate on a music internet messageboard. . . So what term should we use to describe those who post on messageboards and write pop criticism who worship the angel-figure Popist and deplore the devil-figure Rockist?

The reference to the pure, instantaneous pleasure as the sole criterion for qualitative evaluation of music for the popist seems ironic--that mans everything else is ephemeral, inessential, hence lacking authenticity. So it almost seems like deliniating "pop-positive rockists" versus "real popists" seems rather rockist (insofar as I can understand the term to be descriptive of any specific biases; rather than a facile term used by one exclusive group of Ists to de-legitimise the supposed priorities of another group of Ists.)

 

[mms]

I like doom and drone, but "true" metalheads would never accept it, I group it in more as prog/psych/artrock with metal imagery/ornamentation.

hmm they accepted burzum's ambient pieces, thorns and ulver as well as loads of black metal's pretensious ideas, plus there is lots of unpopular tricky prog metal out there.


why do people on this thread keep on using the term early adapter?

the phrase is early adopter, if you are going to use these phrases then please use the right one.

 

[gek-opel]

why do people on this thread keep on using the term early adapter?

the phrase is early adopter, if you are going to use these phrases then please use the right one.

YES! That's exactly what I was thinking earlier...

 

[gek-opel]

So it's not possible for a "real" (authentic?) popist to be a music critic, or even to pontificate on a music internet messageboard. . . So what term should we use to describe those who post on messageboards and write pop criticism who worship the angel-figure Popist and deplore the devil-figure Rockist?

The reference to the pure, instantaneous pleasure as the sole criterion for qualitative evaluation of music for the popist seems ironic--that mans everything else is ephemeral, inessential, hence lacking authenticity. So it almost seems like deliniating "pop-positive rockists" versus "real popists" seems rather rockist (insofar as I can understand the term to be descriptive of any specific biases; rather than a facile term used by one exclusive group of Ists to de-legitimise the supposed priorities of another group of Ists.)

There are some people on ILM who are critics and approach a pure-popist position (identifiable perhaps by the fact that in discussions of pop music they attribute full artistic agency to the named performer, rather than to a svengali/producers, which is indicative of pop-positive rockism) but its a very very rare thing indeed. You are correct in claiming that there is still an argument contained within popism for authenticity, (the authentic nature of perceived unmediated response) although it is a clearly delineated form outside of that approved of by rockism. Both function precisely to de-legitimise and destabilise the assumptions of the other. If you observe popists in argument you will note that they are just as dogmatic as rockists, and often more explicitly so.

 

[matt b]

Nice strawmen.

You know, the first Champs (later known as the Fucking Champs) record CAME OUT IN 1995. It was a little ironic, I suppose (or perhaps it was just a curious development) but pretty genuine even then.

(I mention the time frame just to point out the strangeness of the phenomenon being noted and addressed, as though for the first time, twelve years after it began.)

doesn't mean that the concept of 'ironic metal' doesn't exist though- its been growing since the mid-90s.

i saw the fucking champs in about 2000-ish and plenty of the people there were clearly being ironic throughout.

at the slint atp djs (who i know) were playing metal 'ironically' well into the middle of the night- metallers never bowed down to 'eye of the tiger' the way people were that night.

 

[gek-opel]

at the slint atp djs (who i know) were playing metal 'ironically' well into the middle of the night- metallers never bowed down to 'eye of the tiger' the way people were that night.

I don't understand how people can enjoy music "ironically"-- I mean to enjoy it in a somewhat contingent, partial, conflicted sense perhaps, to enjoy with some doubt, but ironically???

 

[mms]

I don't understand how people can enjoy music "ironically"-- I mean to enjoy it in a somewhat contingent, partial, conflicted sense perhaps, to enjoy with some doubt, but ironically???

it's not the music they are enjoying, it's the cultural status of thinking that although something has qualities you enjoy or admire, it's below you because it's popular or something. Alot of the indie kids djing in pubs kind of approach to grime or hardcore or whatever is like this.
it's horrible really, you either like and enjoy something or you don't and it's important to challenge what music resonates to you, you might be missing something.

i've seen lee dorian from napalm death djing and he was magnificent.

i went to a bar in new york where the dj played heavy metal, mostly 70's stuff and uk nwobhm quite unironically, the last hour was slayer hour, fantastic.

 

[matt b]

I don't understand how people can enjoy music "ironically"-- I mean to enjoy it in a somewhat contingent, partial, conflicted sense perhaps, to enjoy with some doubt, but ironically???

you have to remember, that to many, metal was THE enemy in the 80s. it signified major labels/selling out etc.
metal collapsed (for a period) due to grunge, so by the mid-90s people were viewing it as a guilty pleasure, but hamming it up because metal's past role wasn't fully forgotten.

 

[swears]

Wasn't that just Hair Metal, though? A lot of thrash and stoner stuff was okay to listen to.

 

[matt b]

Wasn't that just Hair Metal, though? A lot of thrash and stoner stuff was okay to listen to.

yeah, but hair metal was huge in the 80s- the other stuff was in the extreme margins (stoner stuff other than sabbath didn't come about until the 90s).

lots of h/c kids would dismiss a record w/ a guitar solo on it as 'metal' and therefore worthless.

this sort of stuff led the change in the 90s:
Amazon product ASIN B000000TB6

 

[nomadologist]

hmm they accepted burzum's ambient pieces, thorns and ulver as well as loads of black metal's pretensious ideas, plus there is lots of unpopular tricky prog metal out there.


why do people on this thread keep on using the term early adapter?

the phrase is early adopter, if you are going to use these phrases then please use the right one.

if i was using the wrong one, it's probably because i write these posts in like 5 seconds. i've heard CEOs say it BOTH ways, so whatever, it's not like Heideggerian jargon. in fact, early "adapter" might be a new way, because "adopter" applied mostly to techy gearheads in the 90s.

since when have any of you taken a business course or been called upon to use this term "for real." given how many times i've had to explain it to people here, that's rich...

 

[nomadologist]

I used it with different meanings in different contexts before, too, but the lack of common agreement over what it means is starting to bother me (especially since even magazines over here have started using it). I hate wrongly being labelled a hipster, too: I’m ‘hip’ goddamit!

Guybrush, what are you preserving the term "hipster" for? Do you really need to preserve its pejorative uses so badly? I think the lamest thing on earth to do is constantly complain about "'hipsters" and "hipster culture" that ellusive thing no one can really define EXCEPT BUSINESS ANALYSTS.

 

[nomadologist]

Nice strawmen.

You know, the first Champs (later known as the Fucking Champs) record CAME OUT IN 1995. It was a little ironic, I suppose (or perhaps it was just a curious development) but pretty genuine even then.

(I mention the time frame just to point out the strangeness of the phenomenon being noted and addressed, as though for the first time, twelve years after it began.)

Do you know what a strawman is? Simply disagreeing with someone does not mean they've used a strawman in their line of reasoning (or emoting or opining, in this case...)

People, when you're talking about music opinions outside of a formal "debate" context, using fallacies from formal or symbolic logic is completely uncalled for in assessing someone else's opinion--just say you disagree!

 

[nomadologist]

The thing about "irony" w/r/t liking music is that, where in the 90s the irony was intact and this led to a lot of "retro"-styled music and insubstantial forms of aesthetic throwbacking , in the oughts we've gotten to this point where the difference between ironic enjoyment and plain old enjoyment have collapsed. As in: a DJ who spins AC/DC now may have at one time only liked it because it was funny white trash music, but now (post-irony, post-pastiche, since those approaches don't resonate as much anymore and have been coopted by advertising, etc.) spins them because he actually likes the tunes. He's ceased to see why, if you enjoy how something sounds, its "ironic" potential or camp-factor should keep you from fully enjoying it with no reservations due to the bounds of "tastefulness."

Does this make sense?

 

[mms]

if i was using the wrong one, it's probably because i write these posts in like 5 seconds. i've heard CEOs say it BOTH ways, so whatever, it's not like Heideggerian jargon. in fact, early "adapter" might be a new way, because "adopter" applied mostly to techy gearheads in the 90s.

since when have any of you taken a business course or been called upon to use this term "for real." given how many times i've had to explain it to people here, that's rich...

ok whatever you say..............

 

[nomadologist]

if you're going to use ellipses, only use THREE PERIODS, mms. like this...

just picking on you.

I spent a lot of time talking about these things in my media management courses, and I do think the original term is "adopter", but I like "adapter" better because "adopter" implies you're latching onto a trend that's in place, "adapter" implies that you're responding to the extreme influx of information that is the marketplace before others

 

[soundslike1981]

The thing about "irony" w/r/t liking music is that, where in the 90s the irony was intact and this led to a lot of "retro"-styled music and insubstantial forms of aesthetic throwbacking , in the oughts we've gotten to this point where the difference between ironic enjoyment and plain old enjoyment have collapsed. As in: a DJ who spins AC/DC now may have at one time only liked it because it was funny white trash music, but now (post-irony, post-pastiche, since those approaches don't resonate as much anymore and have been coopted by advertising, etc.) spins them because he actually likes the tunes. He's ceased to see why, if you enjoy how something sounds, its "ironic" potential or camp-factor should keep you from fully enjoying it with no reservations due to the bounds of "tastefulness."

Does this make sense?

I hope you're right, and people are sincere in liking whatever they purport to like. I for one can't imagine having the energy to bother pretending to like anything--there's too much good art and too little time as it is. But I'll admit, sometimes the "kids" who're really going all out to try to look stylishly idiosyncratic, with funny t-shirts and references to Guns'n'Roses, etc. seem a little self-conscious. I try to chalk it up to playfulness rather than willfull boredom--that they're trying to have fun with post-modernism, rather than abandoning meaningful investment. But I guess my own personal response to my inability (if that's what it is) to become single-mindedly invested in one particular scene/aesthetic/dogma is to opt out of any scene/subculture/uniform, not wearing my tastes on my sleeve (literally or figuratively), as opposed to creating a attention-getting synthesis of various scenes/subcultures/uniforms. It's probably just a matter of getting older, and having always been something of a non-joiner anyway.

I guess I tend to think of "hipster" as connoting a fixation on feeling cutting edge and "in the know;" whereas a music geek is more likely to know more, enough that he knows he doesn't really know much at all, and to not put much stock in whatever "cutting edge" can be read about in youth-orientated websites and magazines. Geeks are just obessed, and while they may try to share their obsessions with others, they know 99.8% of everyone is actually going to feel sorry for them and their obsessions (music geeks are pitied by .1% less of the population than, say, Trekkies). So there is an element of appearances involved in being a hipster--it doesn't mean people don't enjoy what they see as cutting edge, it's just that they're a little needlessly proud of it. But of course, that way of seeing it is a little self-serving--but hopefully I'm excused because if a hipster starts talking to me about how unique and groundbreaking Devendra Banhart--have you heard of him?--is, I'll just kindly point him to the Tyrannosaurus Rex section of the record store, and give him a grandfatherly pat on the perfectly coifed head ; )

 

[nomadologist]

I definitely agree with most of what you're saying, Soundslike, especially when it comes to my observation of "hipster" behavior in person. But I do think that for the most part, even the hipsters who get ridiculously caught up in their "look", are, as you say, just having fun. I think there's a lot of strange resentment toward people who are willing to take their tastes to an extreme now--it seems that post-grunge, this sort of thing is seen as decadent. But then, at the same time, some of the same people who complain about hipsters and their maximalism will mourn the loss of our abillity to go so far over-the-top as we did in the glam, post-glam, new wave days. I get frustrated with that, because you can't have it both ways: either people should be able to be fey and ridiculous in the service of making an aesthetic "statement" with their image, or they shouldn't. If you think they shouldn't, then how do you expect music (as something heavily entangled in identity politics, everyday cultural semiotics, and iconography) to move forward?

I think that's why it's best to leave any "perjorative" connotations out of my use of hipster, because it just sounds like sour grapes to me. We're all just a slice out of the consumer pie, when you start looking closely at how we live, how we consume music, how we dress, etc.