Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

Common ILM Misconceptions: AKA shut up you stupid fuckers

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
1) When sinker sez "influence does not exist" he means that every album is sui generis. In reality, the point is that "influence" is a lazy word which encompasses a range of things, so think twice before using it and try to be more specific as to what you actually mean.

2) "Superword" is any disputed term. The point is rather that it is a term which moves away as you get closer, an unattainable goal, perhaps evern a grasping towards transcendence. Also that "superword" works for terms with two totally different meanings, or in any context. For example, "hard" is probably a superword in the context only of a certain late period of jungle.

3) There is a "cult of pop". Some people like some pop music as well as other things. Also the so called "cult of pop" on the whole is as well if not better informed on a range of things from dancehall to up-to-the-minute electronic, to dylan, to the history of hardcore punk, to etc. There are just some people who don't like lazy thinking, even when it comes to pop music, and don't see cheap shots at popular targets as any way to gain "cred".

4) ILM is in anyway "popcentric". After the recent influx of all sorts of folx, some who are very sharp and informed on interesting music and some of whom are lazy provocateur fuckers who just like to piss in other people's wells instead of thinking interesting things and posting to facilitate discussion rather than mudslinging.

5) Chart rap is just about "money and bitches." Don't even get me started.

6) Underground rap has any sort of claim to "authenticity" of representation of the lived experience of the black population of America as a whole.

7) Underground rap is only for white people. This neglects the aspirational aspect which appeals precisely towards a desire towards upwards mobility from foax who want to get out of the ugly situations chart rap often deals in.

8) Rockism means "likes rock music". In reality it refers to a complex of prioritizing certain things "real melody", "plays own songs", "uses real instruments", "doesn't trade in sexuality" as the absolute quantifiers of musical value, as adressed in more depth on like a thousand threads,

9) You're so fucking special. Well, you're not, asshole.

10) Now you go!

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:16 (twenty-two years ago)

11) You're clever if you point out that "R&B" doesn't mean what it used to. Or that "IDM" is a stupid genre name. Well, you're not. So shut up.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:17 (twenty-two years ago)

This should be a sticky thread.

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:20 (twenty-two years ago)

(No matter what anyone else adds.)

― mark p (Mark P), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:21 (twenty-two years ago)

12) People who like popular female artists only do so because they want to sleep with them.

13) There's somethng wrong with wanting to sleep with popstars.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

14) that ppl take cheap shots at popular targets to gain ''cred''.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:25 (twenty-two years ago)

15) Avril Rules

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:26 (twenty-two years ago)

16) There is a continuity between "underground rock" of the 80s and today.

17) When someone says they like an artist or even a song or two from that artist, and give some interesting reasons why, that means they think that artist "roolz".

(Also Julio, what do you call Nickalicious' Andrew WK post on the misfiled records thread? Totally off topic and out of the blue he just chimes in to add, oh yeah and andrew wk sux! I don't even like andrew wk that much and I found it fairly offensive, just for sheer smugness factor.)

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

(the misconception being that Avril doesn't rule, delete me)

― jel -- (jel), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

18. UK Garage is more punk than nu-US Garage. UK Garage is characterised by real insurrection NOT quasi-rebellion (see US Garage) and the genuinely new NOT the conveniently trendy. The 'definite article band' is a retread whereas UK Garage is boppin-new. Context is irrelevant when considering nu-US G. NO! No!

― dwh (dwh), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

19) There is a continuity, in the sense of resurrective-continuity, between Nuggets and nu-US G.

― dwh (dwh), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

20) When someone posts a list of terrible hateful ILM poster traits, they are TALKING ABOUT YOU!!!!!!!

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:44 (twenty-two years ago)

21) It's, like, soo far-fetched that someone does / does not find thrills in bubblegum/carefree/"manufactured" pop. Not listening to pop is denying yourself / Pop is easy-listening.
--I'm not bothered with the issues of authenticity. Sometimes I just don't want to hear a melody for days. Sometimes good pop is all I want. It doesn't mean anything.

22) We're all white, middle-class & straight racists because: blah blah blah undie rap blah blah blah token rap blah blah

23) There is an A in the word "definite". definate, definately, definative..... This might just be a pet peeve..

― Adam A. (Keiko), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:45 (twenty-two years ago)

THANK YOU ADAM FOR #23 (ok and the other two)

― defi-Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

''(Also Julio, what do you call Nickalicious' Andrew WK post on the misfiled records thread? Totally off topic and out of the blue he just chimes in to add, oh yeah and andrew wk sux! I don't even like andrew wk that much and I found it fairly offensive, just for sheer smugness factor.)''

sterling- haven't seen that comment (even though i posted to it) and yes, there are ppl at times who do say boringly predictable things abt pop but some ppl that take 'cheap shots' are not all lazy thinkers. maybe ppl get so mad at something that instead of 'analysis' they resort to it. a lot of ppl who have 'interesting' things to say take cheap shots at times.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 29 November 2002 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Hook, line, sinker:

24) Not all music with distorted guitars is metal.

― Siegbran (eofor), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

25) Taking a "cheap shot" at a single pop musician automatically means that the person taking said "cheap shot" must hate ALL pop music.

26) Criticism of pop music is not allowed.

27) Criticism of pop music, or a pop single, or a single pop musician, should be construed as an attack by the criticizer against all people on ILM who like pop music (never mind that the criticizer may actually enjoy pop music, too).

Does that cover it?

― hstencil, Friday, 29 November 2002 19:29 (twenty-two years ago)

28. ILM doesn't love music.

― dwh (dwh), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:33 (twenty-two years ago)

29. ILM wasn't responsible for Watergate.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I am no longer sure how this thread works.

― dwh (dwh), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

30) This thread worked.

(there's nothing more irritating than some jerk presuming that all people have to post, think and act alike.)

― hstencil, Friday, 29 November 2002 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

oh, I'm hstencil, I'm too good for the hut!, why am I a jerk?

― david h (david h), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:40 (twenty-two years ago)

What? Okay, so I'm a jerk for not saying "shut up you stupid fuckers?"

31) ILM makes sense.

― hstencil, Friday, 29 November 2002 19:42 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the thread title was a David Cross reference...comedian.. funny....haha

― Adam A. (Keiko), Friday, 29 November 2002 19:50 (twenty-two years ago)

32. stern john

― gareth (gareth), Friday, 29 November 2002 20:10 (twenty-two years ago)

33. Poison roxxx u r all gay.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 29 November 2002 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Then wouldn't it be "Shut up you fucking babies"?

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 29 November 2002 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

5) Chart rap is just about "money and bitches." Don't even get me started.

Sterling, I would like to get you started. Please elaborate on this one.

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Friday, 29 November 2002 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I luv hstencil AND dwh. what do i do abt that?

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 29 November 2002 21:57 (twenty-two years ago)

spit roast

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 29 November 2002 21:59 (twenty-two years ago)

Chart rap is just about "money and bitches."

It's about indie guilt too.

― Siegbran (eofor), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah yeah you're right, that might be stretching it. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt when they're calling people "stupid fuckers" or whatever because.... It's pretty rude, isn't it?

― Adam A. (Keiko), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:07 (twenty-two years ago)

34. sept. 1st, 1939 - germany invades poland; resulting in france and britain declaring war on germany.

― dyson (dyson), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:16 (twenty-two years ago)

hstencil I'm not calling for a hive-mind, just an end to lazy thinking which passes for "insightful". In case you didn't notice, the thread was dealing mainly not with the pop/rockist thang at all, but lots of other dumb arguments and misuses of terms. i.e. not "rockism is bad you stupid fucks" but rather "stop using the term to mean something it doesn't" and ditto for most of the rest of the list.

The main people who think criticism of pop isn't allowed are the same ones who criticize pop and then do backflips trying to undercut some supposed "pop mafia" their paranoid fantasies create. And furthermore when somebody does point out any of the qualities which make the charts intrinsicly interesting (not the same as praising everything on them) nobody ever engages and provides a thoughtful rejoinder, instead dismissing it as "pseudo-academic bullshit justifying liking crap" or something, when of course liking something needs no justification, but rather explanation.

Nobody starts a "let's talk about metallica" thread which is then hijacked by "metallica r crap u listen to stupid ROCK music, britney RULEZ!" posts. But that's exactly, nearly, what Helltime did to the Backstreet thread.

I just think there should be certain ground rules for civil discourse which centers around not saying the same boring things which hardly matter, and instead provides new insights into music. And prime among those are don't misuse terms and conduct lazy readings of complex arguments. Attack the strongest rather than weakest point of an argument, and try to communicate rather than throw rocks.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh and by "civil discourse" I mean productive, not sans namecalling, obviously.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:34 (twenty-two years ago)

fine sterling but can't you ignore the 'offending' posts? you are going to get new anti-pop posters all the time.

ppl throw rocks because its easier when you're posting during lunch hour at work.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Julio's right about new people and what that means -- I suggest you'll have to develop a thicker skin here, Sterling...

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 November 2002 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

35. That if you dislike something (or everything) about mainstream music, then you automatically feel that indie is perfect and you are hear to guide people to the light that is indie.

I want to debate #5.

― David Allen, Friday, 29 November 2002 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely the point though is that people can't have it both ways - there are as many anti-pop people as pro-pop people here now, and many of the former have internal social or internet connections, so accusations of a "mafia" on a public internet message board are fairly meaningless. If people mean "ooh I hate the way people rebut my arguments" then they should say so. The "Britney sux u are all gay" posts annoy me far less than the "oh haven't you heard it's illegal to think pop is anything less than brilliant on ILM" (a point that has consistently been disproven time and time again even on the behalf of the "mafia").

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:00 (twenty-two years ago)

david i don't think the parentheses help yr point much

― jones (actual), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Every time I look at this thread, I have the urge to start singing "Shut your fuckig face, unclefucker..."

― kate, Friday, 29 November 2002 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

36. Ned hates fun.

― J (Jay), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Ahem.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:21 (twenty-two years ago)

*reads concept of thread more carefully* Ah, all is clearer. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Wha? That's right, innit?

― J (Jay), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I want to debate #5.

Tupac Shakur.

Debate ended.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus The Roots, Jurassic 5, and Black Eyed Peas have all had top 40 singles, so... it's even more true/false.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:28 (twenty-two years ago)

That's right, innit?

As noted, yes.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Nobody starts a "let's talk about metallica" thread which is then hijacked by "metallica r crap u listen to stupid ROCK music, britney RULEZ!" posts.

What about "outkast r crap u listen to stupid BOHO hip-hop, jigga RULEZ!" posts?

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:45 (twenty-two years ago)

1) When sinker sez "influence does not exist" he means that every album is sui generis. In reality, the point is that "influence" is a lazy word which encompasses a range of things, so think twice before using it and try to be more specific as to what you actually mean.

RFI: A primer on how to be more specific in this context

RFI p. 2: Why does "influence does not exist" = "influence" is a lazy and ill-defined concept?

RFI p. 3: If I say that "The Beatles influenced ELO" I am admittedly making a pretty boring claim. However, it would also be a TRUE claim, wouldn't it?

Is there a piece somewhere exploring this in more detail?

― J (Jay), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with Nate - maybe it's just a collective paranoia on the part of some of us who like bohop, but every time I enjoy a "conscious" rap choon (like that "take it back to the days of yes-y'allin'" one by Jurassic 5), I feel like admitting to liking same on ILM would be like printing up engraved invitations for people to insult my taste

re: influence, run a search, there are several threads where mark explains his position in illuminating detail

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:49 (twenty-two years ago)

B-b-but it's OK to hate boho rap because they are being CONSERVATIVELY REGRESSIVE by not liking bling and rapping about retro stuff and also only WHITE PEOPLE listen to it so it's okay for OTHER white people (who despite being white see some sort of problem with a white rap demographic) to mock you with stupid one-liners! Besides, everyone who likes El-P and Can Ox is a buzzkill joyhater who sees no merit whatsoever in chart rap and wishes Eminem would die!

(Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean Ethan's not out to get you, har har)

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Thx John.

― J (Jay), Friday, 29 November 2002 23:59 (twenty-two years ago)

God almighty, do I ever hate boho hip-hop.

― polyphonic (polyphonic), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Remember, if you hate Eminem, this means you hate black people. If you like Jurassic 5, this also means you hate black people.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, reading those previous threads has done nothing but irritate me.

Saying that "influence does not exist" to mean "the word influence is inadequate and vague" is just as bad as using the word "influence" in a sloppy way. Both seem unintelligible to me.

But maybe I should take this to one of those threads.

― J (Jay), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I think I can summarize mark s's position, though not without frontloading it thus: mark's stance is essentially a question of semantics. "Influence" seems to him a verb of agency, implying that the "influential" artist exerted his/her will on the "influenced" artist in some way. He would prefer language that describes what the so-called "influenced" artist is actively doing with his/her art, rather than language which seems to impute some sort of mesmerizing power to the "influential" artist: who after all made art not to cause others to be influenced by him/her, but for entirely self-contained reasons.

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:30 (twenty-two years ago)

howzabout...Other peoples' interpretation of your attitudes and opinions don't count because only you and you alone know what you meant and how you meant it, and if they don't get it, it's their fault somehow.

― M Matos (M Matos), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:31 (twenty-two years ago)

To my mind mark s's tenacity regarding this question is a great thing: it has caused me to think harder about the way I think about music, and plays into some ideas about influence & incest that my esteemed Latin professor has made the main focus of her work: and I can't believe I never made the connection before, but I hadn't. (Her position, summed up clumsily by me: the "influenced" artist takes an actively incestuous role with regard to the "influence," despite the semantics of things seeming to suggest the reverse.)

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:39 (twenty-two years ago)

NB Sterling and Tracer Hand are your new moderators. Good thread, good work, good night.

― Tom (Groke), Saturday, 30 November 2002 00:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i always spell definate incorrectly

― adam b (adam b), Saturday, 30 November 2002 01:01 (twenty-two years ago)

(37) Killing Joke are Goth Cretins.


No they're fucking not! Cretins, maybe, but GOTHS? NEVER!

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Saturday, 30 November 2002 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)

38. People who mostly just like chartpop are more open minded than those who don't.

39. It's the listener who needs to 'mean'/'feel' the song, not the writer.

― jack cole (jackcole), Saturday, 30 November 2002 03:14 (twenty-two years ago)

40. If you like Ween (like I do) you're a goofball and should be disregarded completely.

41. Whatever make the most money before it dies wins.

42. It's ok to criticize something that only sold 300 albums (that makes you smart), but criticizing a top 10 hit is not ok (that makes you just a dull whiner like that Helltime guy).

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Saturday, 30 November 2002 03:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Wait, those weren't misconceptions. 40-42 are actually true.

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Saturday, 30 November 2002 03:29 (twenty-two years ago)

43. Indie rock is something you need to be weaned away from.
44. Before we all came to ILM, we were college-rock lunkheads who hated all forms of pop and dance music -- but ILM showed us the error of our ways.

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 30 November 2002 03:42 (twenty-two years ago)

45. Peter Pan peanut butter is better than Jiff


This is bullshit and rockist.

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 30 November 2002 05:47 (twenty-two years ago)

No, rockist peanut butter is natural peanut butter -- no prefabricated sugary pop PB for me. Just real peanuts, motherfuckers. (Actually natural peanut butter is a godsend and a reason to keep on living.)

― Clarke B., Saturday, 30 November 2002 05:53 (twenty-two years ago)

It has lots of calories. When I went to college and went from 250 lbs to 175 lbs in 6 months (all food money spend on pot) my grandmother told me that peanutbutter was a good, calorie-packed option. I thought to myself, "fuck that, I'm finally not a fat guy anymore." But now I'm married and fat again. Go fig, right?

― Helltime Producto (Pavlik), Saturday, 30 November 2002 05:59 (twenty-two years ago)

JIFF IS BEST!

― James Blount (James Blount), Saturday, 30 November 2002 06:19 (twenty-two years ago)

33. Poison roxxx u r all gay.

This is not a misconception.

― Ally (mlescaut), Saturday, 30 November 2002 06:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Jack why is 39 a misconception? Not picking on it cos it's by me but because I'd like to discuss it - seems kind of obvious to me that there's no virtue in a situation where a songwriter pours their guts into something and people just think 'eh'.

― Tom (Groke), Saturday, 30 November 2002 11:09 (twenty-two years ago)

46. choosing to like something for a confused or shallow reason aged 14 is a far more repellent betrayal of humanity in the 21st century than it was 20 or 40 or 60 years ago
47. most people were way dumber and way squarer 20 or 40 or 60 years ago
48. the saving grace of the past is how the cool daring vanguard sector of it was struggling to become exactly like *US*

― mark s (mark s), Saturday, 30 November 2002 11:14 (twenty-two years ago)

re:39 - does all music have to have an audience, Tom?

― dwh (dwh), Saturday, 30 November 2002 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

1 person constitues an audience

― gareth (gareth), Saturday, 30 November 2002 12:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I didnt say audience I said listener - the writer can be the listener too.

― Tom (Groke), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

audience = listener, surely. if you don't get weighed down in the common use of audience as being pluralistic. but, ok, rephrase the question, does all music have to have a listener?

― dwh (dwh), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

yes. there is always a listener, even if it is the artist and no one else

― gareth (gareth), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

not, is but have, gareth? does all music have to be heard? isn't that the implication in #39 that the feeling of the song is prime, in this context. obv the only way the listener can feel it is to hear it, but the author-artist can feel it by playing it, by wrenching the music out of himself, not necessarily feeling through the act of hearing but through the act of performing so that even if he was 'performing' silence he'd still be feeling it. (what a horrible word 'feeling', in this context.) I don't know what I'm getting at, either. Tax law has killed ma brain.

― dwh (dwh), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

not 'is' but 'have', rather. i know there always is a listener, but it doesn't always have to be heard.

― dwh (dwh), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Jif peanut butter is so much better than Peter Pan that it's not even funny

― J0hn Darn13ll3 (J0hn Darn13ll3), Saturday, 30 November 2002 13:57 (twenty-two years ago)

in that case, no, it doesnt have to be heard. its existence can be felt in more ways than one, even if only contextually.

also, john cage 4'33. is this heard?

― gareth (gareth), Saturday, 30 November 2002 14:10 (twenty-two years ago)

"but the author-artist can feel it by playing it"

Surely the meaningfulness of physically playing a piece of music is something that can only be determined by the player for the same reasons that the meaningfulness of listening to a piece of music is something that can only be determined by the listener. These points affirm rather than contradict each other.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Saturday, 30 November 2002 14:25 (twenty-two years ago)

49) When faced with a "Taking Sides" thread, the best choice would be to say "neither, they both suck; [similar artist/song/album] is better".

50) People who post almost exclusively about a single genre are more qualified to discuss said genre than people who post about all kinds of things.

51) Saying "you are crazy for liking that song" is only bad some of the time.

52) If you post an album or song title by an obscure band without mentioning who the band actually is, people will know what you're talking about. Same with acronyms.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 30 November 2002 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

53. When someone posts "X: Classic or CLASSIC" it is funny to reply 'Dud'; the funniness quotient goes exponential if your's is the first reply to the thread.

No. No it isn't. No.

― dwh (dwh), Saturday, 30 November 2002 16:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you have to eat peanut butter to appreciate it?

― Jody Beth Rosen (Jody Beth Rosen), Saturday, 30 November 2002 18:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm a choosy motherfucker. Peter Pan is gay.

― Curt (cgould), Saturday, 30 November 2002 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

more "influence": in "wittgenstein's mistress" david markson has a character who, being familiar with gilbert murray's shakespearean translation of "the trojan women", goes to an athens bookstore and wonders if they have a greek edition of shakespeare "by a translator who had been under the influence of euripides".

― dan (dan), Saturday, 30 November 2002 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

54. oh no! indie club! oh no!

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Saturday, 30 November 2002 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

:(

― gareth (gareth), Saturday, 30 November 2002 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

55. If X says a pop song is crap and Y gets on him about it, it's because he dared to criticize a pop song, not because his reason for doing so seemed sweeping or reactionary.

56. If Y defends pop as a concept Y is defending all pop songs ever, as opposed to simply defending the idea that pop is as worthy of serious non-reactionary discussion as anything else.

56. 48 is not a really interesting point and not at all the reason I sometimes don't like lists of great albums from previous eras.

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 30 November 2002 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

55 & 56 applied to pop only.

― Curt (cgould), Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:00 (twenty-two years ago)

55 & 56 applied applies to pop only.

― Curt (cgould), Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

57. Any of this actually matters in the real world

― M Matos (M Matos), Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:05 (twenty-two years ago)

58. simon trife wont fuck yall up beyond belief

― s trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

59. ILM is not an insidious time-destroying parasite

― webcrack (music=crack), Saturday, 30 November 2002 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

also, john cage 4'33. is this heard?

60) John Cage's 4'33" wasn't meant to be heard.

― hstencil, Saturday, 30 November 2002 23:36 (twenty-two years ago)

61) i wont put two in your brain

― s trife (simon_tr), Saturday, 30 November 2002 23:44 (twenty-two years ago)

62) s trife is a hard-ass gangsta thug, instead of a big huggy teddy bear.

― hstencil, Sunday, 1 December 2002 00:05 (twenty-two years ago)

63. Chartpop is the new black.

― jack cole (jackcole), Sunday, 1 December 2002 00:59 (twenty-two years ago)

64. Meta-ILM threads are interesting.
65. Anyone outside of about 4 people cares about this whole indie vs. pop thing.

― please, Sunday, 1 December 2002 01:49 (twenty-two years ago)

discussions rock best when rolled out as "top 100" lists, rewarding the o.t.m. quick thinker poster with a high number -- this practise isn't rockist nor "cententious"

― george gosset (gegoss), Sunday, 1 December 2002 02:11 (twenty-two years ago)

M Matos is the only person talking sense here.

― Michael Bourke, Sunday, 1 December 2002 03:26 (twenty-two years ago)

matos' comment would only make sense if he never had posted it.

― jack cole (jackcole), Sunday, 1 December 2002 03:47 (twenty-two years ago)

66. i didnt fuck all your bitches

― gareth (gareth), Sunday, 1 December 2002 04:21 (twenty-two years ago)

(But it would all matter if it could somehow be laid to rest and never bothered with again: the problem is deciding whether this is best accomplished by talking about it or everyone just agreeing to shut up.) (The misconception in this post is possibly that either of these approaches would work.)

― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 1 December 2002 04:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Going back to #5, Tupac, Jurassic 5, etc. are all such rarities. I mean, exceptions like this are maybe 1%, or smaller.

― David Allen, Sunday, 1 December 2002 05:57 (twenty-two years ago)

67. Reducing genres with overgeneralizations proves something.

― bnw (bnw), Sunday, 1 December 2002 06:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Matos, I was just watching bits of something they apparently did on M2 where Courtney Love sat around for twenty-four hours talking shit about celebrities and trying to explain who Minor Threat were, and at one point she went out into the Times Square crowd and "talked music" with a bunch of the kids outside, and oh man it was an ILM minefield: the more I think about it the more I'm reminded that all this crap really does matter to the kids, who will not learn until halfway through college how to properly separate musical taste and personal identity.

― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 1 December 2002 08:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Halfway through college if they're lucky.

― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 1 December 2002 08:19 (twenty-two years ago)

68. If you don't like a certain track another poster likes, this means that you didn't hear it whilst driving/tripping/having sex with a dog. You must perform said act, or else you are a fool.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 1 December 2002 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

69. Sarcasm equals irony.

― Callum (Callum), Sunday, 1 December 2002 12:17 (twenty-two years ago)

oh man it was an ILM minefield

Ah, but in what way! Share some examples. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Sunday, 1 December 2002 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

I second Ned's request.

Also:

how to properly separate musical taste and personal identity

Aren't your tastes part of your personal identity?

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 5 December 2002 17:36 (twenty-two years ago)

70. "I must be the only one who thinks..." Plenty of people think that. You are not unique.

― Mark (MarkR), Thursday, 5 December 2002 17:42 (twenty-two years ago)

71. Justin Timberlake is better than Usher Raymond. (Sorry.)

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Thursday, 5 December 2002 19:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry about the harsh Andrew WK thing, I realize it was pretty retarded.

Sometimes I get carried away. If I wasn't such a big fan of Beck's song "Nobody's Fault But My Own", I'd blame coffee.

Anyway, I haven't been around long enough to compile a long list, but I've got one...

72. When folks assume that musicians who claim inspiration from artists you can't make the connection with are doing so for "crit-luv".

73. That there is some huge divide between undie and mainstream hip-hop. Blackalicious isn't underground anymore y'all. The Roots haven't been underground for years and years. Maybe if we began referring to it as "alternative hip-hop", maybe that might be more appropriate.

74. Any of us know jack shit about anything of which we speak. Okay, maybe this one only applies to me.

And, Sterling, I'm curious about #6...how do undie hip-hop acts NOT have "authenticity"?

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 5 December 2002 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

And I wouldn't have been so goofilly harsh in regards to Andrew WK if I didn't have my own music that was often trashed and dismissed, usually MUCH harsher than anything I've ever seen on Andrew WK.

Plus, the press LOVES him, and I just feel like it's my duty to The Balance Between Good And Evil to try to provide a counter-point, even if it is a retarded and mean-spirited-ish one that comes off as smug.

One day, when I make a really simple rekkid of a bunch of versions of the same song, and the press eats it up like it was foie gras, and you want to call me out on it, BE MY GUEST.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Thursday, 5 December 2002 20:35 (twenty-two years ago)

nickalicious: i meant a "special" claim -- that they were somehow more real.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Thursday, 5 December 2002 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

From John Darnielle, way upthread:
I think I can summarize mark s's position, though not without frontloading it thus: mark's stance is essentially a question of semantics. "Influence" seems to him a verb of agency, implying that the "influential" artist exerted his/her will on the "influenced" artist in some way. He would prefer language that describes what the so-called "influenced" artist is actively doing with his/her art, rather than language which seems to impute some sort of mesmerizing power to the "influential" artist: who after all made art not to cause others to be influenced by him/her, but for entirely self-contained reasons.
To my mind mark s's tenacity regarding this question is a great thing: it has caused me to think harder about the way I think about music, and plays into some ideas about influence & incest that my esteemed Latin professor has made the main focus of her work: and I can't believe I never made the connection before, but I hadn't. (Her position, summed up clumsily by me: the "influenced" artist takes an actively incestuous role with regard to the "influence," despite the semantics of things seeming to suggest the reverse.)

Eventually, I guess we all have invent a set of specialized words to replace the overly broad word 'influence', so that we can express the multiple ideas that can be implied by the word.
Influence1 (pronounced 'Influence Prime') == Band B likes and admires Band A and strives to sound more like Band A, ergo Band A 'Influence1d Band B.
Influence2 == Band A was instrumental in creating a new genre. Band B plays music that fits somewhat within the new genre. Ergo, Band A indirectly Influence2d band B.
Does anyone else have a
Influence3, Influence4 or an Influence5 so we can know in which way one act Influencexd another act?

― Lord Custos Omega (Lord Custos Omega), Thursday, 5 December 2002 23:30 (twenty-two years ago)

to all: sez you!

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Friday, 6 December 2002 04:14 (twenty-two years ago)

75) When someone posts about how much they love an album by a band they just heard for the first time, that poster will really appreciate it if you retort "that album's lame, their (earlier/later) stuff was better".

76) If someone's posts take on a certain persona on ILM, that persona is exactly how that person acts in real life (or on other boards, for that matter)

77) Someone who posts in a comedic or one-sentence style is merely trying to cover up a lack of knowledge or significant insight.

― Nate Patrin (Nate Patrin), Saturday, 7 December 2002 21:55 (twenty-two years ago)

the only things that stand out in my mind about courtney's thing on mtv:

- she was force feeding her opinions to the kiddies, as in "what do you think about x, cuz i think blah blah blah, isn't that how you feel?" "yeah"

- what bothers her about limp bizkit et al is that they are expressing "black man's angers" without having to go through the actual experience of being black in america.

- she smokes a shitload of cigarettes

― ron (ron), Saturday, 7 December 2002 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Am I wrong or is she glamorous as fuck?

― Sean (Sean), Sunday, 8 December 2002 00:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Influence1 (pronounced 'Influence Prime') == Band B likes and admires Band A and strives to sound more like Band A, ergo Band A 'Influence1d Band B.
Influence2 == Band A was instrumental in creating a new genre. Band B plays music that fits somewhat within the new genre. Ergo, Band A indirectly Influence2d band B.

ILX = D&D?

― Curtis Stephens, Sunday, 8 December 2002 00:54 (twenty-two years ago)

she is well suited to being a rock star

― ron (ron), Sunday, 8 December 2002 01:10 (twenty-two years ago)

no-number footnotes
re #59.

from an an agin' rookie,
from the edge of getting shaken half-shitless and exhilarated no end
by it all
(a condition not unfamiliar from another place marked by mark s's involvement)

"ILM is not an insidious time-destroying parasite"

: no way to unconditionally one-hundred-and-twenty-sixthseventh this either way;
"isnsidious" - who can foretell; "parasite" - hardly; "time-destroying" - just cannot be

:: as a matter of (linguistic) fact, among any other things
"ILM"="WEATHER"
literally;
as could be confirmed by approx. a million people and their uninvented foremothers

::: all things considered, :: is actually more reliable than :

― t\'\'t (t''t), Sunday, 8 December 2002 02:19 (twenty-two years ago)

two months pass...
78) A dislike for a critical darling album does not mean that the person who holds this view thinks the critical consensus is always wrong.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:06 (twenty-two years ago)

(Just mostly.)

― mark p (Mark P), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:17 (twenty-two years ago)

How can any preconceptions about ILM not be misconceptions as it's all lies and separate people and shit like that?

― naked as sin (naked as sin), Saturday, 15 February 2003 02:25 (twenty-two years ago)

three years pass...
This should be a sticky thread.

-- mark p (mpytli...), November 29th, 2002.

otm

― Hoosteen (Hoosteen), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:01 (nineteen years ago)

OMG I WAS SO LAME ON INTERNET 2002

― polar bear flashback episode (nickalicious), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

""

― nate p. (natepatrin), Friday, 27 October 2006 20:21 (nineteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILE ILM Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login