Is the pro-pop stance an excuse for intellectual dishonesty?

But, then, I can't read the minds of A) the pro-pop folk or B) Maura, so if either party would like to come on over & start talkin' shit, that'd be nice.

"Intellectual dishonesty" I don't get.

The idea that there is some sort of pro-pop dogmatism doing the rounds is as much of a caricature as the idea of indie which the anti-'pro pop' folks think that the 'pro-pop' gang are against.

Switch the terms and read 'pro-pop' as 'politically correct'. If there was such a thing as political correctness and it was what those people who proclaim themselves to be against political correctness claimed it to be, it would be stupid. But it doesn't exist except as a straw-man argument to enable someone to skirt over the nuances of their opponents position.

But the similarity can be taken a bit further I think: the persistence of the need to stereotype the 'politically correct' or the pro-pop draws attention to a deeper problem! cf. the rise of anti-feminism.

I'm interested in isolating what I think is bad about Pop Idol

Like I muttered there, my sense is that the worst thing about it is the assumption that that the judges etc. on the show, shaping the show, whatever, are pop, not one approach in it. It's the problem of genre writ large.

Perhaps so, Sterling, but this still seems to put the cart before the horse to an extent. It assumes that there isn't a combination of economic and social conditions which produces a standard of 'what people listen to,' that it somehow grows 'organically,' if you will. Is that truly tenable?

Damn, Maura's taking a loooooong lunch!

The pop charts do provide a less-subjective something - a tabulation of the most popular records in a given place at a given time. But whatever that something is it's not a measure of quality. For instance at least half of any given Pop-Eye - often more - is a series of howls and pans at the awfulness of chart records.

Beyond Pop-Eye it's hard to see how 'we' put pop at the centre of anything. ILM has discussion about all sorts, and if you look at NYLPM (were the posting function working, grr) the current topics covered are - The Libertines, Shania Twain, DJ Sammy, J-Lo, blind crossings, Liza Minelli, Horsepower Productions, Robbie Williams, Daniel Bedingfield, and Bow Wow Wow. The charts provide about half the subject matter but also the only two acts (Lopez and Williams) to get a real kicking, though the page is offhandedly rude about Athlete too.

I think if we did put the pop charts at the centre we'd have some kind of case, though. I was reading rockcritics.com this morning and Anthony DeCurtis was quoted as saying, for once in his life, a sensible thing - "The more people buy something the more curious I get". Note 'curious' - that's not a qualititative judgement, though the guy quoting it treated it as such. DeCurtis is saying the popular stuff works as a centre because in the short term it provides a lot of food for thought and meat for debate - why is [x] popular?' is an interesting question for me, just as much as 'why do i like [x]?'. Putting something at the centre isn't saying it's best - we all have the stuff we like - it's saying it's most important, most in need of discussion. And just because I thought rock shouldn't be there didn't mean I thought there shouldn't *be* a centre. (Though I'm not totally convinced of it). Rock after all ended up at 'the centre' because of a hangover from an era when it was astonishingly popular.

David - if that's what's meant by "intellectual dishonesty" then I'm all for it - I love thinking my way into why people might like something because often I end up actually liking it. Net result - I like more music and am happier! (though poorer). I don't ever claim I like stuff that I don't like - sometimes I say [x] is better than [y], which might mean [x] gets 2/10 and [y] gets 1/10 after all, but can get misread as "Tom loves [x]".

I fully admit that I haven't traced Tom's Pop/Indie ratio, but exhibit A) would have to be the Real Music Martyrs. Particularly given the statement (dimly remembered from a thread) that they aren't just 41-43, they're actually targeted for spite.

Also, the "Should Pop Idols be shot?" thread also featured some nasty triumphalism from one Tom Ewing. Though the thread was a victim of asking a different question in the title ("Is the product of these things essentially worthless?" - an interesting question, and one of ILM's Secrets of Fatima) than in the actual question ("Should something permanent be done about Will and Gareth?" - yes, please).

I've been meaning to write something about double standards for a while when I puzzle it out: there's an indie radio station whose idents include the phrase "Music that Matters", and I'm trying to figure out _why_ this is cheek.

Misremembered from a thread. They've always been the n singles from 41+ displaced by Pop Idol tracks, skipping any other PI tracks that get displaced. It's completely checkable so we'd get egg on our face quickly if we were just picking the indie ones. I think the RMM is a great and funny idea (well it amuses me anyway), also Andrew it's a RUNNING JOKE aimed at people who don't see the internal contradiction in holding the position of 'this fad is killing music'.

basically i think she ain't convinced you actually like pop in a "genuine" way

(nb i havnae read the other thread. also not my opinion, just devils advocating)

why is [x] popular?' is an interesting question for me, just as much as 'why do i like [x]?'.

Though in ways isn't DeCurtis's statement loaded (admittedly maybe more from an American context than the British)? Much of what's happened over the past ten years has been a slipping first of the amount of singles purchased and then of the albums. It's not really so much people buying something anymore, so it seems to me -- it's a collage of downloading, listening choice and listener choice (or viewing choice and viewer choice, to throw MTV into the mix). That strikes me as much less quantifiable -- and there might be a danger of outright ignoring those processes by which what might be popular ends up at play in the arena. Again, like with Sterling's statement, there seems to be something...well, almost disengenous about counting out the means by which a series of businesses are trying to get product out there. It doesn't just happen all the time.

Putting something at the centre isn't saying it's best - we all have the stuff we like - it's saying it's most important, most in need of discussion.

I find this both sensible and a bit slippy. Something about this comes across as less a statement of criticism and one more of, dare I say it, sociology -- along the lines of what Sterling said above, actually. Are we studying the music or others' reactions to it? As you might guess, given my own vision of things, I'm not really keyed into this social context at all -- I appreciate that others might like what I like (or hate what I hate, or have different opinions, etc.) but otherwise I don't care, since opinions can and do differ so radically from person to person. And guessing why the bulk of people like something -- or even who or what that 'bulk' is, and how they listen to something, and why and so forth -- could be one hell of a mug's game. I will say 'could,' though. Perhaps I'm overlooking something obvious.

Rock after all ended up at 'the centre' because of a hangover from an era when it was astonishingly popular.

But it still is -- to go back to DeCurtis, let's check the catalog sales charts, then, and how much of what on there sells compared to the amounts current discs do. Why not curiosity on why the Eagles still sell? Or is there nothing curious about it? Which might be the case, of course (but I'd be very intrigued to see some age breakdowns among purchasers -- or downloaders).

Thinking your way into liking something that you wouldn't leaves you open to the most horrible of rockist responses: "You're joking, right? You can't really like that. I get it. Good one!"

Real Music Martyrs == talking about your ex's misfortunes behind their back == "Oy, Tom, you slaahg!"

No criticism was intended of Tom's attitude towards something that he associates with an unhealthy period of his life. Which I'm sure he gives a whole heap of fuck about.

Andrew if getting peeved at one response and then apologising afterwards is "nasty triumphalism" might I suggest you get thee to a nunnery? The question in the title was being asked in the thread - the question you claim wasn't answered ("Are these songs worthless?") was pretty much all that was talked about - cf the back-and-forth with me, Jeff, Roger Fascist, etc.

The thing with the RMM is also that it wouldn't exist if I hadn't read loads of people saying "Pop Idol is keeping good music out of the charts", leading their audience to imagine huge spheres of brilliant music which would be popular if it weren't for Will and Gareth. And what I'm saying is - look, they're simply not that powerful.

(As an argument the RMMs are worse than useless of course cos the point is the promotional muscle being expended for W&G which could be being expended on The Guntzheads. I think that's a good argument - it's all reminiscent of the arguments there used to be in comics fandom; "this would be a literary paradise if it werent for the X-Men"; "b-b-but they're keeping the industry afloat" etc etc. PI is not keeping the music industry afloat mind you.)

Andrew - singles kept out by the RMMs are either singles falling down the charts, which have been in the top 40 but are denied an extra week, or new entries. The Squire record was the only actual new entry that week - i.e. PI caused it never to be in the top 40 at all, unlike Puddle of Mudd and whatever the other ones were.

And I'm not arguing with you here because there's nothing to argue: You asked me how I got this impression, I answered your question. You're as likely to convince me that I didn't get these impressions as I am to convince you that you love indie

As for "intellectual dishonesty," I'll admit there have been points -- especially back when I started doing things for Pitchfork and looked at their boards -- where I've felt the temptation to tear, "pro-pop" into someone's sloppy "rockist" thinking on an issue where I actually agree with their end assessment, or to defend something I don't necessarily like simply because I dislike a person's reasons for attacking it. Is this "intellectually dishonest?" I think I do this all the time with non-musical things: half of the political arguments I get into here are with people I vaguely agree with, only I think their particular reasoning and rhetoric don't work.

I'm thankful to ILM for having rushing me through the process of getting sick of indie. I was bored with it while I started reading the boards, and the discussion here condensed what could have been years of aimless, annoyed listening into two or three months of sudden realizations. I don't know if it's made me "pro-pop" -- I've gone from never thinking about pop at all to listening to a decent amount of it, but the pop I like most still tends to the stuff some people would claim as not "really" pop. Instead, I've just shifted sideways into listening to more dance music.

And surely RMM is flavoured by dislike for the thing in the first place, I mean on a website where disliking John Squire's new single is not a controversial view then yeah sure it's easy to imply that Will and Gareth aren't doing that much harm.

I think the source of my annoyance which I made clear a few times on NYLPM was at this shocked attitude to people having a dig at the popists which comes up on the "are you pretending to like pop" threads. I mean surely it's a case of the Squire fans or whoever giving back what they feel they're getting.

- As more means of non-sales transmission become available then yeah you try and quantify those or otherwise take notice of them. DeCurtis is still right if you swap "buy" for "download" or "watch" or whatever. Most pop critics take that into account anyway, following and having an opinion on whatever 'buzz' is currently happening.

- I know the charts don't just 'happen' and that gets taken into account too, but I think pro-pop people are generally much better at separating the sales techniques and uncompetitive practises from the product being sold. The safest bet, it seems to me, is to assume that the average consumer has access to a limited (but still large) number of musical choices and to assume that they have free will within that number. It also seems safe to assume that anything the industry thinks has a chance of selling it will try and sell: in a novelty-driven business which likes to think of itself as 'edgy' this means potentially almost anything.

I do think there's not nearly enough writing about how the industry sells stuff from a pro-pop(the music) perspective. Too much reporting on Clear Channel, for instance, elides its business practises with the "bland", "manufactured" music it promotes, whereas it's surely clearer to say that CC's methods are wrong EVEN IF every record you hear on it is brilliant. The constant elision puts pro-pop people off talking about it, plus it involves actual research and we're all lazy.

- the mug;s game argument: yeah i completely agree, it's very hard to do this without making lots of generalisations. I don't think that makes it not-worthwhile though. The most you can do is try to work out what an individual might be getting from it, and the best way of doing that is keeping an open mind and asking them and trying to like it yourself.

- the Eagles point: we discuss old stuff ALL THE TIME!!! Including the Eagles :)

Andrew - I know you got those impressions. I'm just saying that on re-reading the thread my response isn't "Wow, sorry, I can see how you got that impression."

(Mark S has dealt best with the what-good-might-PI-do questions I think)

Ronan - I try to make the RMMs as over-the-top as I can so it might just be a style/sense of humour thing, given that you hate Tanya too and I think she's grebt.

(I think "trying to like stuff" is a perfectly valid position)

(My theory lately is that just about all music is inherently likeable, and it's more a question of what subset of the whole you decide to actively enjoy.)

when simon cowell, let's say, says "this is good but that is bad", do the anti-PI ppl genuinely seriously believe that that he is actually secretly saying inside his head "these are both worthless but haha who cares i know how to sell anything to anyone?" - or are they just pretending to believe this because it's convenient?

Ned: the music only matters insofar as people react to it.

It occurred to me at lunchthat there's something analogous to celebrating/blaming 'the voters' for a result when in fact over half the eligible voters don't vote, say. Similarly, who are in fact the 'people'? But a little more on this below.

Sharp comments Michelangelo, but I'm thinking this: if you pay attention to pop to increase possible pleasure all around, do you pay attention to everything else, every other possible genre, whatever it might be? If not (lord knows I sure don't, but I doubt many others do or can as well in such a thorough way, given the sheer amount of decades of recorded music around the world and more every day), there is in fact a value judgment -- not someone else's agenda, maybe, but definitely one's own! In which case pop is the playground for our projections and so forth, which I'm happily fine with, but even if it's a shared playground, it's not the place to play, just a place.

Most pop critics take that into account anyway, following and having an opinion on whatever 'buzz' is currently happening.

The most you can do is try to work out what an individual might be getting from it, and the best way of doing that is keeping an open mind and asking them and trying to like it yourself.

Combining these two points here because I think they work well together, and also to further extrapolate the potential problem -- you're right in that all we have on the one hand is anecdotal evidence if we ask someone directly, and that's always a good thing (though then again, 'trying' to like it? I'd prefer to say, being equally open to liking or disliking it, especially if it's something you theoretically should like, based on your other listening choices, but in fact leaves you wondering). But 'buzz' in the larger sense -- that's again loaded. In Costa Mesa alone I could jump from one buzz to another, whether I was at either of the techno stores in town or listening to the various Spanish-language stations (or the local show playing underground but wildly popular nortenos) or the ads for various Canto-pop and Korean-pop singers making appearances over here and so forth. You're not denying subcultural buzz, of course! And it's no less potentially driven by ads, marketing, etc. But it's a bit like Pop Idol again, this idea of a singular buzz when there can be multitudinal. It's much less centered and therefore not as easy to deal with, but if only the chief trend/feel/whatever is picked, where does that leave every other possibility? And if another kind of buzz is the more fascinating than the chief one, then why bother with the chief one so much?

I think pro-pop people are generally much better at separating the sales techniques and uncompetitive practises from the product being sold

Interesting...you think? Meaning this -- are we talking pro-pop people as the commentators here and elsewhere or pop listeners in general? I appreciate the idea of a built-in cynicism and wariness, that makes sense to me. But I'd wonder if it was so widespread -- and again, there's something sneakily similar a perception of the political process here (we know all our candidates took plenty of skullduggery took plenty of skullduggery to get where they are but we buy the product anyway because it's the choice we know about the most?).

It also seems safe to assume that anything the industry thinks has a chance of selling it will try and sell: in a novelty-driven business which likes to think of itself as 'edgy' this means potentially almost anything.

But generally it doesn't (which I think you're saying anyway). We want to believe it could, but in practical terms, does it? In which case, to extend the voter metaphor a bit more, we hope and believe in the possibility of anyone worthwhile getting a look in and not being surprised when in fact plenty stays the same or within particular boundaries. Not everything, to be sure, and not every change is seismic (much as I prefer that myself). But if the 'industry' is the screener, it sucks -- based on the vast majority of acts it signs and then can't sell for shit no matter how hard it tries or won't sell at all. That's a pretty low hit/miss ratio and implies that its guesses at good chances blow and that there's even less that breaks out than might be thought.

The constant elision puts pro-pop people off talking about it, plus it involves actual research and we're all lazy.

Rah! A statement I can get behind fully. ;-)

As Tom I'm sure could attest, the business side also must listen to the consumers as to what it is they want.

But refer to my note above -- as screeners for what the consumers 'want' the industry eats! Balance the multitude of acts who get somewhere against the vaster multitude that don't. There are judgment calls being made, only some of which work for the results hoped for -- and thus:

when simon cowell, let's say, says "this is good but that is bad", do the anti-PI ppl genuinely seriously believe that that he is actually secretly saying inside his head "these are both worthless but haha who cares i know how to sell anything to anyone?" - or are they just pretending to believe this because it's convenient?

I'm not with either of these responses, Mark. If anything, I'd think he was going with his judgment, it just wouldn't necessarily be mine, is all. It might be!

My theory lately is that just about all music is inherently likeable, and it's more a question of what subset of the whole you decide to actively enjoy.

I'd go for 'potentially' over 'inherently.' Like Sterling said -- maybe turning this all on my head now ;-) -- isn't all how we all react in the end?

Tom's "I don't like indie/rock much any more" stance always makes me smile, because in the last few year or so he has expressed a liking for The Strokes, The Coral, The Rapture, Lambchop, Bonnie Prince Billy and Andrew WK, among others. I think Tom's semi-lurch away from indie is much the same as mine, in that for the last 9 or 10 years indie/rock had formed the majority of my listening. Now I think I am self-consciously listening to less of it, mainly because I am self-consciously exploring other things. But whearas Tom is leaning towards pop/r'n'b/hip-hop I'm leaning more towards house/techno/canonical IDM/electronica. I'm not jettisoning indie (and I don't think Tom and co are really), I'm just acknowledging there are other fish in the pond.

Of course, there are posters here who never liked indie, who are obviously excluded from this.

Also - define 'pop'. The artists I see being discussed most often and most gushingly here are (at the moment) Missy Elliott, The Streets, Nelly, Clipse, etc... none of whom I would describe as pop (in the way the explicitly pro-pop/anti-pop people seem to view it).

I think I can watch PI and in the context of watching that show form opinions about who "deserves" to win - ie what is good and what is bad in that particular context. Is he/she sexy, can he/she sing, dance, project a personality that is going to strike most people as likeable etc. I suspect most of my judgements are not going to be so very different from Simon Cowell's actually, because the criteria being applied are pretty transparent. And I can do something similar at even at a lower level, Stars in Their Eyes, say, or a local talent contest.

In the particular context my feeling that Contestant A is better than Contestant B - that the former is "good" and the latter "bad" - may be sincerely held, even strongly felt. It doesn't necessarily imply that I'd want to buy his/her records, though.

I think the crux of the matter is: pro pop doesn't mean anti-indie.

...but indie, by definition even, means anti-pop*. Obviously we need a new word for indie music that isn't as exclusionary or presumptive.

*haha that works on so many levels!**

**Okay, well, maybe just the two...

my god, of all the bullshit i've had to endure on these goddamn boards, this takes the total fucking cake.

I don't think being/liking indie is inherently anti-pop AT ALL - I don't think the two should be or usually are opposed. I wish they weren't so much. I think there's an ideological strain in the indie community which dislikes the larger-scale aspects of the music industry and like I said upthread elides their business practises with the product those practises promote. Also no indie mag or site ever lost readers by slagging off 'the mainstream'.

What about "Yr too old for pop"? That's what my 15 year old sister says...

1) I wish the pro-popperz (and I think of myself as one, sometimes) were more reflexive in some of their attitudes. Enjoying a pop record often involves deliberately screening out the stuff you don't like: eg the way Avril is being marketed is trite (I almost wrote Trife!) and she says some dumb things in her interviews... but! 'Sk8r Boi' is my favourite pop song of the year! It seems to me that a lot of otherwise fairly tolerable indie or rock is dismissed on the grounds that its rhetoric is old fashioned or dishonest or the group said something stoopid to the NME... but that can all be just filtered out in the same way as with Avril. I sometimes think of the FT aesthetic as "pub pop" in the sense that every theory of pop or rock seems to imply a kind of ideal listening experience: for indie this can be the box bedroom Peel show private awe-struck revelation (or, alternatively, the moshpit conflagration), for new pop it coulda been the irruption of some astonishing video on the Tube or TOTP or MTV into your suburban living room. For FT I think the implied ideal is hearing a song on a pub jukebox (partly because one of the best articles Tom ever wrote was about pubjukes): is the song - cut off from ideas of who the band or author is, what they've said in interviews, how a label is marketing them - powerful and striking and hooky enough to cut through the smokey, boozy chat and provoke a new conversation of its own? This is a strong idea, and it applies just as much to the Strokes as to Steps, Oasis as to Abba.

2) (A related point about the disdain some of the pro-poppers seem to have for nu-ILM - the attitudes remind me a lot of sub pop fans after Nirvana crossed over: the wrong people have started joining in!. It seems to me the trajectory of ILM is profoundly pop (in the best sense): a small conversation gets out of control, runs abroad in the culture, becomes a bigger conversation, and so becomes much more interesting).

3) This isn't entirely flippant, but I think Tom is the Green Gartside of popcrit (!) in that, through biographical contingency he associates indie with depression, and the move to pop as healthy, and these have accrued a kind of causal relationship, which may or may not be the case. But we all do this, in one way or another, and taste and aesthetics are far less rational than we sometimes think.

i don't think that argument does come to that. i also wouldn't agree with a statement like "you're too clever for pop". i know plenty of thickos into indie and plenty of clever people into pop. cleverness and musical taste are in no way linked. it's because this thread is about a "stance" that i agree with bob zemko's devil's advocacy, which was addressing that.

i also should have been clearer and said that i don't have an opinion on whether or not it applies to you tom as i haven't read much of your music writing. it just certainly seemed very true of some people i know.

he argues (and i basically agree) that being able to construct your opponent's position fairly is a prerequisite of intellectual honesty

of course intellectual dishonesty is also v.handy and also v.funny sometimes

I am more guilty than anyone of the snide and cruel one liner, but I like to think I seperate that side of the criticism (aren't pop stars ridiculous) with my liking for the song. Problem is since it is often quite hard to articulate what I dislike about - say Too Bad by Nickleback whilst liking Alive by POD - all that's left is the lousy quip.

I must admit even I'm not enamoured by the real music martyrs. But then I am the man who said Daniel Bedingfield was the white Craig David which appalled me.

- the music you talk about is only a fraction of the music you listen to or like i.e. I could like pop just like a teenager and then not write about it.
- talking about liking music is for whatever genre a groping towards expressing a slippery and time-specific listening experience. There's nothing inherent in pop which makes liking it more ineffable than liking anything else: once you start a discourse about music you're always moving into a different area from your listening-to-music experience, whatever the music is. I think the areas are separable but not that its useful to separate them, if that makes any sense.

I do not think I personally have ever met somebody who didn't like the music they said they liked. These creatures crop up a lot in threads like this but I fear they may be mythical.

(I'm assuming of course that liking something for the 'wrong reasons' i.e. because it's cool or because it's naff is still essentially liking it.)

sadly i've only had time to speed read this thread so far, and i'm sure i've said the thing about westwood in a couple of other places, but does militant genre focus (i.e. listening exhaustively to everything in one genre and nil else) produce a better understanding of what music can do for/to a listener, or a more powerful emotional/other effect on the listener, than trying to absorb everything and not really liking any of it?

so, for example, tim westwood's record collection legendarily consists of every hip hop/rap record ever made and no other records AT ALL. does that mean that he understands the POWER of music better than the more polymath of punters? is so narrow a focus a passport to the core of understanding or merely a hindrance?

- "Conflagration"! NO danger!!

"Really liking" - which brings us back to the question of "realness" etc. as well as the actual merit of "moving on" (see also Sherburne on Elliott).

nath, in my heart a.n.wilson has always been a big old girl!!

haha, my exclamation marks [DO YOU SEE?] are the height of intellectual dishonesty!! i'm a professional sub-editor for g00dness saXoR!!

if it's all a question of perspective.

as opposed to understanding why we listen to/appreciate music in such a way and why we cannot understand anyone else's experience, as we can only properly understand our own perspective.

which was actually what i was talking about, using westwood as a textbook example of narrowness vs. rainbow coalitions.

and why, to quote danny baker, "something terrible always happens to music when you're 26."

if this is indeed the case.

It does make it redundant Marcello - I think we're talking about the same thing. I just found your "listening to everything but not really liking it" phrasing judgemental - perhaps it was meant as confessional since you're very much a 'rainbow coalition' writer, I don't know.

JtN is OTM re: TE's juker piece.

when you are younger and poorer and can only allow a few records into your life, rather than a lot, then you tend to cherish these records very deeply, play them over and over, analyse the lyrics, pore over the sleeve art, until they become part of you. whereas when you get older and more "panoramic" it's very easy to say, oh another missy elliott album zzzz (so it's a judgement on myself as much as anyone) without realising that there's a 14 or 15-year-old out there who will treat "under construction" as though it were their bible.

this is perhaps drifting off-topic. is it just a matter of getting older and more cynical, and if so how does the consumer stop the latter?

Pinefox CATCH UP there was a big thread about it on ILE!

(or does that sound like a cross between nick hornby and momus?)

Anyway thats not what I meant by passing over. I mean that out of the records he buys sheer weight of numbers mean some get less contemplation than others - half a play and that's it.

Well,it's swings and roundabouts. Westwood implicitly understands the power of hip hop, which despite it's current prominence is still a narrow frame of reference. He loses out, as the last post shows in empathy for other genres.

The same thing I think happens to most listeners though. They start with one or two records, usually as a teenager and have an intense relationship with them. After that the effect is diluted, but you're still looking for that feeling again.

Hm, I feel that way sometimes...

i am not enuff of an expert at hiphop to know where to go with this, howevah

although i do note that his playlist is strictly populist; haven't seen much evidence of def jux, 73ark, clouddead etc., so does this betray only a partial understanding of hip hop on his behalf, cf. larkin/jazz?

He probably doesn't as obv. hip hop gives him enough emotional nourishment not to pay any need to other genres.I know that I would lose out if I was restricted to one genre and so I find it difficult to understand his (or anybody elses) monocultural frame of reference.

(it seems like westwood demarcates his own hiphop to reassure himself of who he is. is this kind of total nourishment valid? reflexive needs empathy. empathy=questions. but westwood cannot deal with questions in his life)

In his own terms he doesn't *need* to, fine. It's not that he would become 'better' by opening up to other things, just that he might conceivably be missing out on something - pleasurable experiences whatever. There are some people who claim to hate ALL music, same argument goes for them too.

where's this thread?

i think it means this one toby.

Tom......tom....where are you tom.....