wire letters page - joe muggs

[elgato]

I don't think this is accurate. The genalogical framework predates Reynolds' by decades and will continue long after the 'nuum is nothing but a faint memory. Rock is constantly looked at in terms of genealogy: blues>rocknroll>metal>punk>new wave etc... reggae too ska>rocksteady>reggae>dub>dancehall... this extends to art criticism as well.

You may be right in saying that the challenge is to find new methods of analysis, but I think the 'nuum is small fry when it comes to contributing or imposing to what is, by tradition, a dominant mode of analysis and criticism of music and art in general.

perhaps so, it cannot be denied that that approach is pervasive in most music critique / documenting. the question would be how inevitable it was that it would become quite so entrenched in relation to a form that in many ways was a radical departure from the past

but either way you're certainly right in saying that the real issue in my post is whether or not the zeitgeist / straightjacket exists, not whodunnit

 

[elgato]

i'd tweak this a bit so that the words 'weegie pisstake' are in there somewhere. you make it sound like they had a strategy meeting to plan this 'ish

my favourite is the bristol lot calling theirs the 'WOW sound', Joker being the 'PURPLE WOW SOUND' lol

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

and the same goes for no-one else really buying my logic that zomby was taking the piss (at least a bit) with his 'where were you in 92' album. not everyone is as po-faced and serious as dissensus posters

really, wasn't it quite obvious that he was half talking the piss? but in a loving, reverential and even somewhat po-faced (not in a bad way though) manner.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

perhaps so, it cannot be denied that that approach is pervasive in most music critique/documenting. the question would be how inevitable it was that it would become quite so entrenched in relation to a form that in many ways was a radical departure from the past

but either way you're certainly right in saying that the real issue in my post is whether or not the zeitgeist/straightjacket exists, not whodunnit

a couple things. for one, what's so terrible about geneology? it's just another tool, like buzzwords or comparison as description, tools which are much derided and frequently (like all tools) misused. unfortunately it's also nearly impossible to write coherently about music w/out them. the task of writers is to use those tools creatively & sparingly.

also, I dunno how radical the departure was. or rather how much of its "radical" nature had to do w/advancements in technology much more than anything else, not only in music production but also in the way information was distributed (cell phones, fax, Internet and so on). what I mean is that for all the hype Acid House/Summer of Love/rave and everything that came after wasn't/isn't really that much of a departure from post-WWII youth/pop culture, wonderful CCRU/SR style diatribes about crit theory & posthuman beat science & Neuromancer and whatever aside.

 

[elgato]

really? you don't think that sampling or the ideas that hip-hop brought represented anything radical in the impact it had on many peoples' understanding of music? or the democratisation of means of production and distribution? regardless of whether radical departures are born of technological advancement or not... i don't really see why that would make that radicalism less so, or less relevant. i actually pretty much agree that it was in most part born of technological jumps. i accept that my point on this wasn't that strong though, it is more just a vague thing about how the swift / radical / gradual (delete as you choose) erosion of institutional control of production, performance and distribution of music, and the development of styles and technology that undermined the way that value had traditionally been placed on music, would impact writing in the longer term. cos indeed i think Reynolds brought a great deal of new ideas and new ways of thinking about music. although again this point isn't central to what i'm trying to say, and i don't think its about from whence it came (dance music, the sampler, societal shifts, art more broadly) but rather whether its there

genealogy in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like often its the dominant or only thing. its also regularly used to apportion value, and i think is inherently conservative, and to me quite boring. why does writing about music need to be 'coherent' anyway? especially as the primary objective. creative and thought-provoking are things that I value more highly, for now in any case

 

[DJ PIMP]

the wonky thing does have clear reference points in artists like hyper-on-exeperience... material that sat outside the rave narratives of the day. tracks like monarch of the glenn etc.

more broadly that in observing the genesis of a form of music there is the temptation to fetishise and isolate it, and that this leads to a kind of stasis... as the quote in the OP discusses.

has there ever been a better time for music than the present? once historicisation kicks in, it's all over.

 

[droid]

the wonky thing does have clear reference points in artists like hyper-on-exeperience... material that sat outside the rave narratives of the day. tracks like monarch of the glenn etc.

I don't think that Hyper-on-e sits outside the rave narratives of the day at all. Reynolds' specifically cites 'Lord of the Null Lines' as a seminal tune...

I'm missing the wonky connection here too... its certainly not clear anyway.

 

[mms]

the wonky thing does have clear reference points in artists like hyper-on-exeperience... material that sat outside the rave narratives of the day. tracks like monarch of the glenn etc.



has there ever been a better time for music than the present? once historicisation kicks in, it's all over.

well its a reference point for you, whether its a reference point for most of the kids who probably would have been 4 or 5 when the track was made.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

really? you don't think that sampling or the ideas that hip-hop brought represented anything radical in the impact it had on many peoples' understanding of music? or the democratisation of means of production and distribution? regardless of whether radical departures are born of technological advancement or not...i don't really see why that would make that radicalism less so, or less relevant...

A radical effect on what people thought was possible in the sonics, on how they consumed & related to music perhaps, but not any fundamental change from how they placed value on music, which it seems is at the core of your argument. The point about technology is that it didn't bring about a corresponding radical shift in human thought. Music is still, by & large, a product of the assembly line of pop culture (& let me be clear I'm not enthusiastic about that), though P2P networks, MySpace, YouTube have made the relationship btwn producer & consumer more nuanced and personal. Everything, even the democratization of the means of production (small, indie capitalists are still capitalists, after all) or the refusal of celebrity (the anti-identity of Burial or Basic Channel, for example) becomes a marketing point eventually.

...cos indeed i think Reynolds brought a great deal of new ideas and new ways of thinking about music...

Most of Reynolds' ideas actually aren't original. His innovation was applying them to music criticism in a way which no one else had (that I know of). That doesn't mean make his thinking & observations any less valid or brilliant. To the contray, in fact.

genealogy in itself is not necessarily a bad thing, but it seems like often its the dominant or only thing. its also regularly used to apportion value, and i think is inherently conservative, and to me quite boring. why does writing about music need to be 'coherent' anyway? especially as the primary objective. creative and thought-provoking are things that I value more highly, for now in any case

By "coherent" I didn't mean articulate or well-reasoned & orderly. I meant functionally coherent, as in not gibberish. Or so vague as to be meaningless. I'm all for writing being creative & thought-provoking (really, who isn't for that?). My point was merely that it's very difficult to construct all that febrile, paradigm-shattering prose without sometimes resorting to classifying things and marking their influences. Especially as music writers, dependent on the music they write about for their livelihood have to, y'know, shill for the products they're describing so their readers can then consume them. All whilst trying to maintain some integrity in the balance, of course.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I don't think that Hyper-on-e sits outside the rave narratives of the day at all. Reynolds' specifically cites 'Lord of the Null Lines' as a seminal tune...

I'm missing the wonky connection here too... its certainly not clear anyway.

Perhaps its just in the batshit craziness of the "anything goes" kitchen-sink mentality. I remember reading a Pitchfork review of Guns & Roses Vol. 1 that compared grime production to Hyper-On E in just those terms. Though placing Hyper-On-E "outside the rave" narrative is just blatantly wrong, and connecting them to wonky seems quite arbitrary.

Wouldn't something outside-not-outside the narrative in that sense would be more like Plug or perhaps some of Alec Empire's excursions into jungle/pre-breakcore? Though both are a little bit later in the timeline.

 

[droid]

Perhaps its just in the batshit craziness of the "anything goes" kitchen-sink mentality.

Yeah - but this could apply to almost any 92+ rave act... Wonky seems to have a bit more of a defined aesthetic.

Wouldn't something outside-not-outside the narrative in that sense would be more like Plug...

That makes a lot more sense - especially with the whimsical easy listening kitsch sampling thing he had going on.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Yeah - but this could apply to almost any 92+ rave act...

certainly. Hyper-On E just seems to be the poster child for that ethos.

 

[elgato]

A radical effect on what people thought was possible in the sonics, on how they consumed & related to music perhaps, but not any fundamental change from how they placed value on music, which it seems is at the core of your argument. The point about technology is that it didn't bring about a corresponding radical shift in human thought. Music is still, by & large, a product of the assembly line of pop culture (& let me be clear I'm not enthusiastic about that), though P2P networks, MySpace, YouTube have made the relationship btwn producer & consumer more nuanced and personal. Everything, even the democratization of the means of production (small, indie capitalists are still capitalists, after all) or the refusal of celebrity (the anti-identity of Burial or Basic Channel, for example) becomes a marketing point eventually.

again, i don't think that this is actually at the core of my argument (to be fair i don't even think i have an 'argument' as such, it feels more a counterpoint, or food for thought, or a call for reflection... i'm not claiming to have seen and understood the big picture, and to present a watertight exposition of what should happen). in any case, the most important bit of it to me isn't whether things have changed in a radical way that 'ought' to be reflected in writing or thought, its whether other ways of writing or thinking about music are possible, and whether it would be a good thing if more journalists and people generally looked for them

i do however think that the idea that the only way music could genuinely radically depart from what had gone before is fundamentally about economics is quite a specific and narrow perspective... it might even be right but i wouldn't tend to accept it as the end of my thoughts on the question

Most of Reynolds' ideas actually aren't original. His innovation was applying them to music criticism in a way which no one else had (that I know of). That doesn't mean make his thinking & observations any less valid or brilliant. To the contray, in fact.

this is indeed true, but is completely compatible with what i was saying from what i can tell

By "coherent" I didn't mean articulate or well-reasoned & orderly. I meant functionally coherent, as in not gibberish. Or so vague as to be meaningless. I'm all for writing being creative & thought-provoking (really, who isn't for that?). My point was merely that it's very difficult to construct all that febrile, paradigm-shattering prose without sometimes resorting to classifying things and marking their influences. Especially as music writers, dependent on the music they write about for their livelihood have to, y'know, shill for the products they're describing so their readers can then consume them. All whilst trying to maintain some integrity in the balance, of course.

im genuinely not meaning to have a go at journalists as individuals in what i say, i know the job is a difficult one from the other side of the writer-reader table, and there aren't many of the paying outlets that there once were for the most interesting writers and thinkers to be allowed to do what they would do. i'm sorry if what i've said has come off like an attack to anyone, or had underplayed the obstacles placed by the industry (i'm sure i have indeed done this)

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

...whether other ways of writing or thinking about music are possible, and whether it would be a good thing if more journalists and people generally looked for them...

I'm sure other ways of "writing or thinking about music" are possible. Anything's possible, broadly speaking, it just hasn't been thought of yet. I think most of the people care enough about this (e.g. the types of nerds & journos who post on Dissensus) are continually searching for new ways to relate to music.

...i do however think that the idea that the only way music could genuinely radically depart from what had gone before is fundamentally about economics is quite a specific and narrow perspective... it might even be right but i wouldn't tend to accept it as the end of my thoughts on the question

I stress the economic merely because as with most things in the world it tends to trump everything else. Even if it takes a little while to do so. One thing about "radical departures", too, is that they tend to be overrated. It's usually harder, I think, to bend the rules than it is to just break them (which is an idea I actually originally came across in a Reynolds piece about UK Garage).

im genuinely not meaning to have a go at journalists as individuals in what i say

didn't think you were.

 

[luka]

this is a dead horse and i'm reluctant to flog it any further, but..... just
check out nicky slim ting on this kool fm documentary.

(about the 3.20 mark)

 

[ether]

To be fair though, this can describe most things on planet mu:
''......mere post-rave pastiche''

 

[mms]

To be fair though, this can describe most things on planet mu:
''......mere post-rave pastiche''

well shitmat is a nobrainer but not alot else, you could call the whole of diff genres like breakcore a pastiche but that would be infering that they are trying to pastiche rave when i think the intentions are different.

 

[Ory]

this is a dead horse and i'm reluctant to flog it any further, but..... just
check out nicky slim ting on this kool fm documentary.

(about the 3.20 mark)

off topic, but remind me, what's the tune at around 1:30 in the first part?

 

[mms]

off topic, but remind me, what's the tune at around 1:30 in the first part?

its a guy called gerald track on bstechnology

 

[Ory]

indeed. thanks.